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 6 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 24 Next page →
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 20:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <979fgh.8ra.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110039 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:45:59 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:24:48 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:06:56 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
>>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or
>>>>>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in
>>>>>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in
>>>>>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no
>>>>>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that
>>>>>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of
>>>>>>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny
>>>>>>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is
>>>>>>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't
>>>>>>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be
>>>>>>>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or
>>>>>>>>>>> not it does".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption
>>>>>>>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether
>>>>>>>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by
>>>>>>>>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a
>>>>>>>> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of
>>>>>>>> atheists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian
>>>>>>>> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived
>>>>>>>> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that
>>>>>>>> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually
>>>>>>>> irrelevant and unimportant to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an
>>>>>>>> accurate description of their position.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy
>>>>>>>> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than
>>>>>>>> addressing their actual positions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain
>>>>>>>>> claims ? especially metaphysical and religious claims such
>>>>>>>>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist ? are
>>>>>>>>> unknown and perhaps unknowable."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I
>>>>>>>>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the
>>>>>>>>> word):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós
>>>>>>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to
>>>>>>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile
>>>>>>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our
>>>>>>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived
>>>>>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know
>>>>>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious
>>>>>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they
>>>>>>>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement
>>>>>>> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and
>>>>>>> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially
>>>>>>> unrelated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to
>>>>>>>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more
>>>>>>>>> utility. Just my 20 mills...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word
>>>>>>>> "atheist".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept
>>>>>>> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited,
>>>>>>> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either
>>>>>>> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said,
>>>>>>> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge,
>>>>>>> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it
>>>>>>>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the
>>>>>>>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different
>>>>>>>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a
>>>>>>> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In
>>>>>>> fact, everyone is born an atheist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
>>>>>>>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
>>>>>>>> something he can understand.?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this
>>>>>>> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person
>>>>>> didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple
>>>>>> skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to
>>>>>> apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and parcel
>>>>>> of e dumbing down of people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a bit too general. While many believers don't
>>>>> actually think about their beliefs, there are notable
>>>>> exceptions, Jesuit scientists being the most obvious
>>>>> example. There have been quite a few advances in science by
>>>>> believers who were also scientists, but were able to
>>>>> successfully compartmentalize belief and science, probably
>>>>> because they were aware that the two are essentially
>>>>> unrelated. Faith, after all, has as a primary definition
>>>>> "belief without evidence".
>>>>
>>>> Or in the face of contradictory evidence.
>>>
>>> They generally retreat to the "God of the Gaps", whether in
>>> the original (?) venue of evolutionary biology or elsewhere.
>>>
>>>> Even if it we possible to prove, with evidence that there is no gods, the
>>>> theist already have a plan. The have a ready Acronym on hand F.E.A.R.
>>>> False evidence appearing real.
>>>
>>> I have yet to see evidence that there are no gods, only
>>> evidence that various claims made regarding their actions
>>> have been refuted. I confess I'm at a loss to think of what
>>> form such evidence would or could take.
>>>
>>>> People that can compartmentalize their thinking process of are few and far
>>>> between. And I don't alway think faith and religion are the same things.
>>>> They can be separated.
>>>
>>> Well, they certainly aren't synonyms; one can have faith
>>> based on historical data ("sunrise and sunset will occur
>>> tomorrow"). But at bottom, religious belief *is* about
>>> faith, "belief without (scientific) evidence".
>>
>> And knowledge is based on understanding evidence and data.
>
> Yes. So? Religion isn't based on science, evidence or data;
> it's based on emotion.
Even worse, religion is based on emotional blackmail, based on
post hoc fallacy.
Remember post hoc declarations are really nothing more than
say-so. It is funny watching people like dumb-can and feelx
doing nothing but repeating post hoc fallacy sand being part
of nothing but the fallacy of the big lie.
>> I know the sun will rise and set not as a belief but and knowledge and
>> understanding of evidence and data. Faith doesn't enter into the equation,
>> really.
>
> Actually it does, if to a *very* limited extent. To argue
> that "as in the past, so in the future" is a statement of
> faith. Justifiable, but still faith, since none of us can
> see the future. Admittedly, it's not very likely that Sol
> will go nova overnight, but it's a nonzero possibility.
Agreed, I can even use prior independent observations
and make sweeping and wide predictions about the sun
rise and set with almost a 99.999999% precision. I can
even predict not only when but where on the horizon
the sun will rise and set. The cycle and mechanism is
well known. Nothing mystical about it, but some
cultural experts point to the primitive clock/calendar
keepers as the foundation of organized religions.
>>>>>> I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always tells
>>>>>> people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or
>>>>>> "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those phrases.
--
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 | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 17:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-36C1E4.17341904032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110039 |
In article <1iijdblkvevujf2e6e92g78ugkrho866v6@4ax.com>,
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:45:59 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:24:48 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
> >> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
> >>
> >>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:06:56 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
> >>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared
> >>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
> >>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >>>>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
> >>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> >>>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting
> >>>>>>>>>>> evidence or
> >>>>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion
> >>>>>>>>>>> based in
> >>>>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> believe in
> >>>>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed
> >>>>>>>>>>> gods, ergo no
> >>>>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not
> >>>>>>>>>>> supporting
> >>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that
> >>>>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same
> >>>>>>>>>> light.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of
> >>>>>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny
> >>>>>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is
> >>>>>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't
> >>>>>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be
> >>>>>>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether
> >>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>> not it does".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption
> >>>>>>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know
> >>>>>>>>>> whether
> >>>>>>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by
> >>>>>>>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From
> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I know.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a
> >>>>>>> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of
> >>>>>>> atheists.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian
> >>>>>>> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived
> >>>>>>> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that
> >>>>>>> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually
> >>>>>>> irrelevant and unimportant to them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an
> >>>>>>> accurate description of their position.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy
> >>>>>>> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than
> >>>>>>> addressing their actual positions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain
> >>>>>>>> claims ? especially metaphysical and religious claims such
> >>>>>>>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist ? are
> >>>>>>>> unknown and perhaps unknowable."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I
> >>>>>>>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the
> >>>>>>>> word):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós
> >>>>>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to
> >>>>>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile
> >>>>>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our
> >>>>>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived
> >>>>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know
> >>>>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious
> >>>>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they
> >>>>>>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement
> >>>>>> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and
> >>>>>> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially
> >>>>>> unrelated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to
> >>>>>>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more
> >>>>>>>> utility. Just my 20 mills...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word
> >>>>>>> "atheist".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept
> >>>>>> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited,
> >>>>>> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either
> >>>>>> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said,
> >>>>>> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge,
> >>>>>> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it
> >>>>>>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the
> >>>>>>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different
> >>>>>>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a
> >>>>>> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In
> >>>>>> fact, everyone is born an atheist.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ?A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
> >>>>>>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
> >>>>>>> something he can understand.?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this
> >>>>>> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person
> >>>>> didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple
> >>>>> skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to
> >>>>> apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and
> >>>>> parcel
> >>>>> of e dumbing down of people.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a bit too general. While many believers don't
> >>>> actually think about their beliefs, there are notable
> >>>> exceptions, Jesuit scientists being the most obvious
> >>>> example. There have been quite a few advances in science by
> >>>> believers who were also scientists, but were able to
> >>>> successfully compartmentalize belief and science, probably
> >>>> because they were aware that the two are essentially
> >>>> unrelated. Faith, after all, has as a primary definition
> >>>> "belief without evidence".
> >>>
> >>> Or in the face of contradictory evidence.
> >>
> >> They generally retreat to the "God of the Gaps", whether in
> >> the original (?) venue of evolutionary biology or elsewhere.
> >>
> >>> Even if it we possible to prove, with evidence that there is no gods, the
> >>> theist already have a plan. The have a ready Acronym on hand F.E.A.R.
> >>> False evidence appearing real.
> >>
> >> I have yet to see evidence that there are no gods, only
> >> evidence that various claims made regarding their actions
> >> have been refuted. I confess I'm at a loss to think of what
> >> form such evidence would or could take.
> >>
> >>> People that can compartmentalize their thinking process of are few and
> >>> far
> >>> between. And I don't alway think faith and religion are the same things.
> >>> They can be separated.
> >>
> >> Well, they certainly aren't synonyms; one can have faith
> >> based on historical data ("sunrise and sunset will occur
> >> tomorrow"). But at bottom, religious belief *is* about
> >> faith, "belief without (scientific) evidence".
> >
> >And knowledge is based on understanding evidence and data.
>
> Yes. So? Religion isn't based on science, evidence or data;
> it's based on emotion.
>
> >I know the sun will rise and set not as a belief but and knowledge and
> >upstanding of evidence and data. Faith doesn't enter into the equation,
> >really.
>
> Actually it does, if to a *very* limited extent. To argue
> that "as in the past, so in the future" is a statement of
> faith. Justifiable, but still faith, since none of us can
> see the future. Admittedly, it's not very likely that Sol
> will go nova overnight, but it's a nonzero possibility.
Have you read Larry Niven's "Inconstant Moon"?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconstant_Moon>
I especially love it because it takes place around UCLA, so it was like
reading about home.
The apartment building where the protagonist lives has since been turned
into student housing. It's also the building where the surfer riding the
tsunami in "Lucifer's Hammer" splats.
> >>>>> I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always
> >>>>> tells
> >>>>> people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or
> >>>>> "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those
> >>>>> phrases.
--
JD
"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 12:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <5uamdbhmq65bsh35ddt6hrait92doqeah1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110091 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:34:19 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>:
>In article <1iijdblkvevujf2e6e92g78ugkrho866v6@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:45:59 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
<snip to the (new) point>
>> >I know the sun will rise and set not as a belief but and knowledge and
>> >upstanding of evidence and data. Faith doesn't enter into the equation,
>> >really.
>> Actually it does, if to a *very* limited extent. To argue
>> that "as in the past, so in the future" is a statement of
>> faith. Justifiable, but still faith, since none of us can
>> see the future. Admittedly, it's not very likely that Sol
>> will go nova overnight, but it's a nonzero possibility.
>Have you read Larry Niven's "Inconstant Moon"?
Yep; one of my favorites of his, since it appeals to my
nasty streak ("Well, that solves *those* problems!"). ;-)
Another is "The Return of William Proxmire", for some of the
same reasons (plus, IMHO Proxmire was a Luddite moron, and
reading of his being "hoist on his own petard" was rather
captivating).
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconstant_Moon>
>
>I especially love it because it takes place around UCLA, so it was like
>reading about home.
>
>The apartment building where the protagonist lives has since been turned
>into student housing. It's also the building where the surfer riding the
>tsunami in "Lucifer's Hammer" splats.
Cool! I always thought the phrase (paraphrased) "...waiting
for him like a gigantic flyswatter" was excellent. And
"Lucifer's Hammer" was yet another of the "problem solver"
genre, albeit generating its own sort of problems. But then,
that's true of most catastrophe tales.
>> >>>>> I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always
>> >>>>> tells
>> >>>>> people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or
>> >>>>> "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those
>> >>>>> phrases.
--
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 | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 16:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-8CC290.16270005032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110139 |
In article <5uamdbhmq65bsh35ddt6hrait92doqeah1@4ax.com>,
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:34:19 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>:
>
> >In article <1iijdblkvevujf2e6e92g78ugkrho866v6@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:45:59 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
> >> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>
> <snip to the (new) point>
>
> >> >I know the sun will rise and set not as a belief but and knowledge and
> >> >upstanding of evidence and data. Faith doesn't enter into the equation,
> >> >really.
>
> >> Actually it does, if to a *very* limited extent. To argue
> >> that "as in the past, so in the future" is a statement of
> >> faith. Justifiable, but still faith, since none of us can
> >> see the future. Admittedly, it's not very likely that Sol
> >> will go nova overnight, but it's a nonzero possibility.
>
> >Have you read Larry Niven's "Inconstant Moon"?
>
> Yep; one of my favorites of his, since it appeals to my
> nasty streak ("Well, that solves *those* problems!"). ;-)
>
> Another is "The Return of William Proxmire", for some of the
> same reasons (plus, IMHO Proxmire was a Luddite moron, and
> reading of his being "hoist on his own petard" was rather
> captivating).
Yeah, Proxmire was a total jerk.
> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconstant_Moon>
> >
> >I especially love it because it takes place around UCLA, so it was like
> >reading about home.
> >
> >The apartment building where the protagonist lives has since been turned
> >into student housing. It's also the building where the surfer riding the
> >tsunami in "Lucifer's Hammer" splats.
>
> Cool! I always thought the phrase (paraphrased) "...waiting
> for him like a gigantic flyswatter" was excellent. And
> "Lucifer's Hammer" was yet another of the "problem solver"
> genre, albeit generating its own sort of problems. But then,
> that's true of most catastrophe tales.
>
> >> >>>>> I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always
> >> >>>>> tells
> >> >>>>> people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable"
> >> >>>>> or
> >> >>>>> "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those
> >> >>>>> phrases.
--
JD
"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 18:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96upe9.534.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109819 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following > appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer > <no_email@invalid.invalid>: > >> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>> >>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>> evidence. > > Yep. > >>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>> >>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. > > Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of > *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny > him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. > >>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be >>> "just part of somebody else's religion". >>> >>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or >>> not it does". >>> >>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption >>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether >>> or not it is, for agnostics). > > Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by > Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism : > > "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain > claims especially metaphysical and religious claims such > as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist are > unknown and perhaps unknowable." > > And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I > know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the > word): > > "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós > "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to > describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile > all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our > ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." > > IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived > limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know > for sure; there are both religious and non-religious > agnostics, both believers and non-believers. > > And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to > decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more > utility. Just my 20 mills... > > <snip> Yes most of these religious cult groups feel if deny their god then you must believe in something else. They are forced by their own mental indoctrination to have to believe in something. They take their own well trained and Pavlovian reactions to emotional stimulation. I state it again an atheist doesn't believe in no gods, an atheist does even recognize the need for a god or gods and he casts off the mental handcuffs which are used to lead people in to doing exactly the opposite of what their cult mythos instructs them. How many churches use the Lord's Prayer, but ignore the verse just before it to which instructs them not to pray in public but in private? It was these sort of things which in my youth made me publicly question the church elders and pastor. His Responce was to go found my own Christian church and lead a reformation. I did better I abandoned church and religion and sought rationality the critical thinking. Belief are based on dogma and not facts, I seldom use the word belief, and that separation served me well. Once I was called to give a deposition in a lawsuit. During the deposition the lawyers kept asking me to answer what I believed I saw or what I believed happened. I told them both what I saw and heard, and not what I believed. When one of the lawyers had enough, he hauled me in front of the judge,which tried to instruct me to answer questions about no about what I believed happen. I explained I could only state what I saw and heard. I do not have to state what I believe. Evidence is based on facts and data. He agreed with me and put a stop to that line of questioning. The concept of belief is so ingrained into modern life, most people refuse to break their childhood indoctrinations -- 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 | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 13:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <g079dbpq9dql5cpt8nb4nij5ud1f1nm762@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109822 |
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:50:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >How many churches use the Lord's Prayer, but ignore the verse just before >it to which instructs them not to pray in public but in private? It was >these sort of things which in my youth made me publicly question the church >elders and pastor. His Responce was to go found my own Christian church and >lead a reformation. I did better I abandoned church and religion and sought >rationality the critical thinking. Belief are based on dogma and not facts, >I seldom use the word belief, and that separation served me well. Then he was an idiot for driving you away from your religion. Whether or not you would have lost your belief later, is another matter. >Once I was called to give a deposition in a lawsuit. During the deposition >the lawyers kept asking me to answer what I believed I saw or what I >believed happened. I told them both what I saw and heard, and not what I >believed. When one of the lawyers had enough, he hauled me in front of the >judge,which tried to instruct me to answer questions about no about what I >believed happen. I explained I could only state what I saw and heard. I do >not have to state what I believe. Evidence is based on facts and data. He >agreed with me and put a stop to that line of questioning. A former colleague had something like this, when he pointed out a false dichotomy and wouln't answer either half of the "or". Again, the judge took his side. >The concept of belief is so ingrained into modern life, most people refuse >to break their childhood indoctrinations
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96vfh0.eb.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109825 |
Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:50:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >> How many churches use the Lord's Prayer, but ignore the verse just before >> it to which instructs them not to pray in public but in private? It was >> these sort of things which in my youth made me publicly question the church >> elders and pastor. His Responce was to go found my own Christian church and >> lead a reformation. I did better I abandoned church and religion and sought >> rationality the critical thinking. Belief are based on dogma and not facts, >> I seldom use the word belief, and that separation served me well. > > Then he was an idiot for driving you away from your religion. Whether > or not you would have lost your belief later, is another matter. He didn't drive me away, but he gave me a real look at what was going on. This was more or less a last ditch attempt to keep me inside a cult line of thought process. >> Once I was called to give a deposition in a lawsuit. During the deposition >> the lawyers kept asking me to answer what I believed I saw or what I >> believed happened. I told them both what I saw and heard, and not what I >> believed. When one of the lawyers had enough, he hauled me in front of the >> judge,which tried to instruct me to answer questions about no about what I >> believed happen. I explained I could only state what I saw and heard. I do >> not have to state what I believe. Evidence is based on facts and data. He >> agreed with me and put a stop to that line of questioning. > > A former colleague had something like this, when he pointed out a > false dichotomy and wouln't answer either half of the "or". Again, > the judge took his side. > >> The concept of belief is so ingrained into modern life, most people refuse >> to break their childhood indoctrinations > Critical thinking is hard word. The habit of thinking critical requires constant reinforcement. People are basically lazy. After a few 1000 years of breeding, it is possible mankind has actually been bred for following a system of belief. It appears to be circumstantial evidence but it is there. Like sheep feeding in a field, the herd trusts the few lookouts, stationed around the perimeter of the herd. Human seems to want to trust the few men in the pulpits just like the sheep herd does. Isn't it funny how some religions refer to the flock and Shepard all to often. -- 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 | 2016-03-01 19:58 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djl41uF455aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109797 |
On 29-February-2016 6:39 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> On 28-February-2016 3:37 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>> 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. >>>> There is ONLY evidence to support what I pointed out. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> Faith is the amount of confidence you have that a belief is correct. >>>> >>> or rather more correctly.. faith refers to the amount of confidence one >>> has that a belief is correct. so there can be a little faith in some >>> beliefs or a lot >>> >> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >> dogmatic beliefs. >> >> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >> evidence. > For most of us, it's not even that. > > Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that > everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. > > So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be > "just part of somebody else's religion". > > Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or > not it does". you're just complicating it. if something is proposed as real, you can agree, or disagree, or abstain. > > Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption > that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether > or not it is, for agnostics). > > Which is just plain silly if you consider all the assumptions behind > that, which only Christians have and non-Christians don't. -- "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 | 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <rkf7db929rq6919aje2fench6s73lhn7kc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109790 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>no gods exist.
Anywhere in the universe? How do you want people to think you could possibly
have found that out? Or only associated with this planet, and how do you want
people to think you could possibly have found that out?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 19:44 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djl37nF3uloU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109790 |
On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> On 28-February-2016 3:37 PM, mur@. wrote: >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>> 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. >>> There is ONLY evidence to support what I pointed out. >>> >>>> 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. >>> So what? >>> >>>>> 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. >>> Faith is the amount of confidence you have that a belief is correct. >>> >> or rather more correctly.. faith refers to the amount of confidence one >> has that a belief is correct. so there can be a little faith in some >> beliefs or a lot >> > A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or > even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in > dogmatic beliefs. > > An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in > gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no > gods exist. so he doesn't believe in gods. why complicate something that's really quite simple? why are atheists so unwilling to admit that? or as mur says "ashamed" to admit it. > There is no need to make up something which has not supporting > evidence. > there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. -- "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 | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 01:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-3A268A.01371501032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109838 |
In article <djl37nF3uloU1@mid.individual.net>, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: > > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >> On 28-February-2016 3:37 PM, mur@. wrote: > >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer > >>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> > >>> 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. > >>> There is ONLY evidence to support what I pointed out. > >>> > >>>> 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. > >>> So what? > >>> > >>>>> 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. > >>> Faith is the amount of confidence you have that a belief is correct. > >>> > >> or rather more correctly.. faith refers to the amount of confidence one > >> has that a belief is correct. so there can be a little faith in some > >> beliefs or a lot > >> > > A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or > > even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in > > dogmatic beliefs. > > > > An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in > > gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no > > gods exist. > > so he doesn't believe in gods. why complicate something that's really > quite simple? why are atheists so unwilling to admit that? or as mur > says "ashamed" to admit it. > > > There is no need to make up something which has not supporting > > evidence. > > > > there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. Like what, for instance. Remember, if it's not something that can be verified by anybody interested in doing the work, then it's no evidence. But, please, I away your evidence. Maybe you'll finally be the one who actually provides the evidence you all claim you have. -- JD "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 06:13 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <0i1bdb5if1q4mevcj885r8sttksh336frv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109846 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 01:37:15 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >In article <djl37nF3uloU1@mid.individual.net>, > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >> > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >> On 28-February-2016 3:37 PM, mur@. wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >> >>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> >> >>> 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. >> >>> There is ONLY evidence to support what I pointed out. >> >>> >> >>>> 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. >> >>> So what? >> >>> >> >>>>> 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. >> >>> Faith is the amount of confidence you have that a belief is correct. >> >>> >> >> or rather more correctly.. faith refers to the amount of confidence one >> >> has that a belief is correct. so there can be a little faith in some >> >> beliefs or a lot >> >> >> > A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >> > even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >> > dogmatic beliefs. >> > >> > An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >> > gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >> > gods exist. >> >> so he doesn't believe in gods. why complicate something that's really >> quite simple? why are atheists so unwilling to admit that? or as mur >> says "ashamed" to admit it. Why can't these arrogantly nasty, in-your-face liars stop lying about us, to us? >> > There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >> > evidence. >> >> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. Do these liars who claim it but never provide it, seriously imagine they fool people who only want them to put up or shut up? >Like what, for instance. If he had any, he would have provided it, Christianity is a conversiion religion and it wouldn't have been able to keep it to itself. >Remember, if it's not something that can be verified by anybody >interested in doing the work, then it's no evidence. > >But, please, I away your evidence. Maybe you'll finally be the one who >actually provides the evidence you all claim you have. Don't hold your breath waiting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <971dsc.cp7.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109838 |
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> On 28-February-2016 3:37 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>> 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. >>>> There is ONLY evidence to support what I pointed out. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> So what? >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> Faith is the amount of confidence you have that a belief is correct. >>>> >>> or rather more correctly.. faith refers to the amount of confidence one >>> has that a belief is correct. so there can be a little faith in some >>> beliefs or a lot >>> >> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >> dogmatic beliefs. >> >> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >> gods exist. > > so he doesn't believe in gods. why complicate something that's really > quite simple? why are atheists so unwilling to admit that? or as mur > says "ashamed" to admit it. See, you feel you have to inject he word "believe". Believing is a matter of faith not fact or evidence. Thank you for providing evidence to a few of by suppositions. >> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >> evidence. >> > > there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. Actually there isn't lots of evidence. That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. You do know the differences between suppositions and postulates and evidence and fact? -- 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 | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 13:25 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <g3rbdb5se49jdggjg0r2hlf7m7rnibrk3m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109861 |
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>> evidence. >>> >> >> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. > >Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >You do know the differences between suppositions and postulates and >evidence and fact?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <971ia2.a6f.19.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109865 |
Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer > <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>> evidence. >>>> >>> >>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >> >> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. > > But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. Or so the true believer would claim. > >> You do know the differences between suppositions and postulates and >> evidence and fact? > -- 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 | 2016-03-02 11:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <n4cedb5fi1jbiustq6ln1rnkvu5r0dbiug@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109865 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer ><no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>> evidence. >>>> >>> >>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >> >>Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. > >But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good enough. I wonder what would happen to someone today who stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any church accusation regarding "antiChrists". >>You do know the differences between suppositions and postulates and >>evidence and fact? -- 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 | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 12:44 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <sccedbdo1g6fusin2lti91aoate1saloa0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109903 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:30:29 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared >in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee ><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >>On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >><no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>> evidence. >>>>> >>>> >>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>> >>>Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >> >>But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. > >It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written >by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good >enough. But only for those who already believe - rationalisation and confirmation bias aren't evidence. Try using these either defending a PhD thesis or even in court. Claims of evidence must be defended as such. But theists can't defend their claims in the real world, because they rest on other parts of their religion and are ultimately circular so there is no way to verify them; > I wonder what would happen to someone today who >stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it >contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; >check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any >church accusation regarding "antiChrists". Theonomists and Dominionists want to bring this back. >>>You do know the differences between suppositions and postulates and >>>evidence and fact? "Felix" is a troll, posting via the aioe.org anonymous remailer. He's the long-time troll who previously posted as "Felix Unger".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <974eoi.teh.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109907 |
Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:30:29 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>> evidence. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>>> >>>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >>> >>> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >> >> It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written >> by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good >> enough. > > But only for those who already believe - rationalisation and > confirmation bias aren't evidence. > > Try using these either defending a PhD thesis or even in court. > > Claims of evidence must be defended as such. But theists can't defend > their claims in the real world, because they rest on other parts of > their religion and are ultimately circular so there is no way to > verify them; > >> I wonder what would happen to someone today who >> stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it >> contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; >> check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any >> church accusation regarding "antiChrists". > > Theonomists and Dominionists want to bring this back. > >>>> You do know the differences between suppositions and postulates and >>>> evidence and fact? > > "Felix" is a troll, posting via the aioe.org anonymous remailer. > > He's the long-time troll who previously posted as "Felix Unger". > I thought I saw that writing style before. I been busy in another group for a while. Thought I check back in where I started so long ago. -- 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 | 2016-03-03 10:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <kbugdbpiiis30o2bf2ask9co4gk18vof4a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109907 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 12:44:23 -0600, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:30:29 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >wrote: > >>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>>On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>><no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>> evidence. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>>> >>>>Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>>That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >>> >>>But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >> >>It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written >>by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good >>enough. > >But only for those who already believe - rationalisation and >confirmation bias aren't evidence. Perhaps I was unclear: While some theists consider the Bible, Quran, Vedas etc. to be evidence, I don't. >Try using these either defending a PhD thesis or even in court. > >Claims of evidence must be defended as such. But theists can't defend >their claims in the real world, because they rest on other parts of >their religion and are ultimately circular so there is no way to >verify them; Sure. That's why I don't believe one can argue science vs. religion and achieve any meaningful result; the standards and mindset are totally different. >> I wonder what would happen to someone today who >>stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it >>contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; >>check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any >>church accusation regarding "antiChrists". > >Theonomists and Dominionists want to bring this back. I'll accept that as a given (I have no knowledge of either), but it doesn't address my point, that only those safely long dead can be revered. >>>>You do know the differences between suppositions and postulates and >>>>evidence and fact? > >"Felix" is a troll, posting via the aioe.org anonymous remailer. > >He's the long-time troll who previously posted as "Felix Unger". OK. -- 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 | 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <976p8k.e36.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109947 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 12:44:23 -0600, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:30:29 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>> >>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>>>> >>>>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >>>> >>>> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >>> >>> It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written >>> by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good >>> enough. >> >> But only for those who already believe - rationalisation and >> confirmation bias aren't evidence. > > Perhaps I was unclear: While some theists consider the > Bible, Quran, Vedas etc. to be evidence, I don't. Treat those as any other collection of myths. If you consider those fictional works as evidence, then you will find people trying to introduce other works of fiction as evidence. Imaging a world where some fictional works are taken a evidence. I forgot we have that happening to today. ( cough Co$ ) Just imagine a world were Sherlock Holmes, Tolkien and Jules Verne's are taken as factual evidence. For a exercise name you own fiction/fantasy and project a world in which the fictional work is taken as evidence of being true. A world in which Harry Potter books are incorporated as being used to claim magic exists. We could even include the movies as evidence of it being real. We already see problems in our education system with the dumbing down of the general population. Dozens of articles have been published in psychology today on the subject of the general dumbing down of the general population. Popular media grabs the publics attention and instead of being people being shown the microwave driven plasma drive for space travel which was announced a few months ago, the media kept Bruce Jenner and the other not news stores in the forefront of the populations mind. > >> Try using these either defending a PhD thesis or even in court. >> >> Claims of evidence must be defended as such. But theists can't defend >> their claims in the real world, because they rest on other parts of >> their religion and are ultimately circular so there is no way to >> verify them; > > Sure. That's why I don't believe one can argue science vs. > religion and achieve any meaningful result; the standards > and mindset are totally different. Theist can not stand their ridiculous claims being dismissed outright. Their just don't understand the error in assuming a false priori. >>> I wonder what would happen to someone today who >>> stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it >>> contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; >>> check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any >>> church accusation regarding "antiChrists". >> >> Theonomists and Dominionists want to bring this back. > > I'll accept that as a given (I have no knowledge of either), > but it doesn't address my point, that only those safely long > dead can be revered. Some cults sects in India have no problems with revering living people. >>>>> You do know the differences between suppositions and postulates and >>>>> evidence and fact? >> >> "Felix" is a troll, posting via the aioe.org anonymous remailer. >> >> He's the long-time troll who previously posted as "Felix Unger". > > OK. -- 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 6 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web