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 3 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 24 Next page →
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <d81adbh0n0j2kt018uu5o5guqe5uac6633@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109813 |
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
><mur@.> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>> <mur@.> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor
>>>>>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far"
>>>>>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence
>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to
>>>>>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go
>>>>>>>>>> away".
>>>>>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian
>>>>>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they
>>>>>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of
>>>>>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch
>>>>>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a
>>>>>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when
>>>>>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking
>>>>>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs,
>>>>>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all?
>>>>>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>>>>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>>>>>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>>>>>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most
>>>>>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the
>>>>>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their
>>>>>>> one and only deity.
>>>>>> it's merely a view or opinion.
>>>>> May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and
>>>>> moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon
>>>>> as well as a creator, or different somehow?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying
>>>> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not
>>>
>>> I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If one
>>> was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and not
>>> provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting evidence is
>>> one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods.
>>>
>>> The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and
>>> contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods indicate
>>> the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound.
>>
>> So the multitude of every belief about the sun and moon and the multitude of
>> diverse and contradictory belief about the sun and moon indicate the premise
>> suggested in number two is logically unsound in your opinion.
>>
>
>It has been a long time since modern man worshiped the sun and moon. I
>don't know about how you worship but a great deal is known about the sun
>and the moon, there is a great deal to still learn. We don't believe in a
>sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in
>them anymore.
Present your arguments that they don't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 00:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb37vs$mj4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109830 |
Le 2016-02-29 21:57, mur@. a écrit : > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> <mur@.> wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>>>>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>>>>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>>>>>>>>> away". >>>>>>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>>>>>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>>>>>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>>>>>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>>>>>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>>>>>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>>>>>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>>>>>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>>>>>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >>>>>>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>>>>>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>>>>>>>> they call him or what they think about him. >>>>>>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most >>>>>>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the >>>>>>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their >>>>>>>> one and only deity. >>>>>>> it's merely a view or opinion. >>>>>> May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and >>>>>> moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon >>>>>> as well as a creator, or different somehow? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying >>>>> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not >>>> >>>> I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If one >>>> was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and not >>>> provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting evidence is >>>> one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods. >>>> >>>> The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and >>>> contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods indicate >>>> the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound. >>> >>> So the multitude of every belief about the sun and moon and the multitude of >>> diverse and contradictory belief about the sun and moon indicate the premise >>> suggested in number two is logically unsound in your opinion. >>> >> >> It has been a long time since modern man worshiped the sun and moon. I >> don't know about how you worship but a great deal is known about the sun >> and the moon, there is a great deal to still learn. We don't believe in a >> sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in >> them anymore. > > Present your arguments that they don't exist. Imbecile. I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. Prove me wrong. See how that works? Well, I suppose not... -- Olrik aa #1981 EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109832 |
Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 2016-02-29 21:57, mur@. a écrit : >> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>>>>>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>>>>>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>>>>>>>>>> away". >>>>>>>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>>>>>>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>>>>>>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>>>>>>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>>>>>>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>>>>>>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>>>>>>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>>>>>>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >>>>>>>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>>>>>>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>>>>>>>>> they call him or what they think about him. >>>>>>>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most >>>>>>>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the >>>>>>>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their >>>>>>>>> one and only deity. >>>>>>>> it's merely a view or opinion. >>>>>>> May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and >>>>>>> moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon >>>>>>> as well as a creator, or different somehow? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying >>>>>> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not >>>>> >>>>> I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If one >>>>> was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and not >>>>> provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting evidence is >>>>> one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods. >>>>> >>>>> The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and >>>>> contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods indicate >>>>> the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound. >>>> >>>> So the multitude of every belief about the sun and moon and the multitude of >>>> diverse and contradictory belief about the sun and moon indicate the premise >>>> suggested in number two is logically unsound in your opinion. >>>> >>> >>> It has been a long time since modern man worshiped the sun and moon. I >>> don't know about how you worship but a great deal is known about the sun >>> and the moon, there is a great deal to still learn. We don't believe in a >>> sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in >>> them anymore. >> >> Present your arguments that they don't exist. > > Imbecile. > > I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. > > Prove me wrong. > > See how that works? > > Well, I suppose not... He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same fallacy. You know that fits the definition of insanity, doesn't it? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting difference results. The use and constant repeating of the same fallacy filled arguments and then he expects different results fits the above definition of insanity. -- 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 | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 00:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aaa-8477E5.00050101032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109834 |
In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Present your arguments that they don't exist. > > > > Imbecile. > > > > I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. > > > > Prove me wrong. > > > > See how that works? > > > > Well, I suppose not... > > > He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same > fallacy. Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly existence! So the agnostics win!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 01:54 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <j3iadbpeatulh6b8v4lhh3mlnemjm4qts7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109835 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:05:01 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: >In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, > Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> >> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >> > >> > Imbecile. >> > >> > I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >> > >> > Prove me wrong. >> > >> > See how that works? >> > >> > Well, I suppose not... >> >> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same >> fallacy. > >Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable >consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually >acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly existence! > >So the agnostics win! What is there to win? How many times must it be exp[lained that atheists are simply people who aren't theist and while a few might hold the position theists insist we all do, most don't. And we haven't got anything to be agnodtic about. We'd have to see the theist's god in much the same way theists do, to be agnostic about it, instead of merely part of somebody else's religion. Back to theists and logic... When faced with anything that might cast doubt on their beliefs, theist minds blank out due to cognitive dissonance, It prevents their thinking too hard about it, and it makes anything we say disappear as if it had never been said. Their minds reboot and they simply repeat when has just been refuted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 22:02 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djlb9iF5vl4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109836 |
On 01-March-2016 6:54 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:05:01 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> > wrote: > >> In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, >> Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>>> Imbecile. >>>> >>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>>> >>>> Prove me wrong. >>>> >>>> See how that works? >>>> >>>> Well, I suppose not... >>> >>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same >>> fallacy. >> Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable >> consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually >> acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly existence! >> >> So the agnostics win! > What is there to win? the existence of God has not been proven, the non-existence of God cannot be proven, ergo agnostics win! :) > > How many times must it be exp[lained that atheists are simply people > who aren't theist and while a few might hold the position theists > insist we all do, most don't. > > And we haven't got anything to be agnodtic about. > > We'd have to see the theist's god in much the same way theists do, to > be agnostic about it, instead of merely part of somebody else's > religion. > > Back to theists and logic... > > When faced with anything that might cast doubt on their beliefs, > theist minds blank out due to cognitive dissonance, It prevents their > thinking too hard about it, and it makes anything we say disappear as > if it had never been said. > > Their minds reboot and they simply repeat when has just been refuted. -- "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 | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 20:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb4spl$1a06$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109848 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:02:22 +1100, felix wrote: > On 01-March-2016 6:54 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:05:01 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> >> wrote: >> >>> In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>> Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>>>> Imbecile. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>>>> >>>>> Prove me wrong. >>>>> >>>>> See how that works? >>>>> >>>>> Well, I suppose not... >>>> >>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the >>>> same fallacy. >>> Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable >>> consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually >>> acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly existence! >>> >>> So the agnostics win! >> What is there to win? > > the existence of God has not been proven, the non-existence of God > cannot be proven, ergo agnostics win! :) The non-existence of all the 30,000+ gods known to have been worshipped by mankind also cannot be proven and the existence of only a few of them _can_ be proven. Are you agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc., etc.? -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 14:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <530cdbpahts4m486mnb3uh0viqmd4n05nt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109872 |
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:07:20 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:02:22 +1100, felix wrote: > >> On 01-March-2016 6:54 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:05:01 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>> Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>>>>> Imbecile. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prove me wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> See how that works? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I suppose not... >>>>> >>>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the >>>>> same fallacy. >>>> Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable >>>> consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually >>>> acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly existence! >>>> >>>> So the agnostics win! >>> What is there to win? >> >> the existence of God has not been proven, the non-existence of God >> cannot be proven, OF WHAT FUCKING GOD? Until demonstrated otherwise, it remains merely part of somebody else's religion. >> ergo agnostics win! :) What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot. Why is it that these in-your-face, aggressive, "I don't know and you don't either" agnostics imagine there's anything to "not know"? Why are they so stupid they don't understand the concept of the feasible default or conclusion? >The non-existence of all the 30,000+ gods known to have been worshipped by >mankind also cannot be proven and the existence of only a few of them >_can_ be proven. Are you agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc., etc.? "But that's different". Way back before I even considered emigrating to the USA, I was told that I was "really" agnostic because I didn't perform the action of "believing God doesn't exist" - and that was pretty much my response. In other words that by his reasoning I was equally agnostic about all those as well. Was that what he meant? I just wish these idiots weren't so in-your-face stupid, and if they had to be in-your-face, they would bother to think - and also to listen when we correct them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 11:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <6vcedbtplpbkqidmrdhiebu37akqsi2fea@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109872 |
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:07:20 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:02:22 +1100, felix wrote: > >> On 01-March-2016 6:54 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:05:01 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>> Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>>>>> Imbecile. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prove me wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> See how that works? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I suppose not... >>>>> >>>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the >>>>> same fallacy. >>>> Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable >>>> consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually >>>> acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly existence! >>>> >>>> So the agnostics win! >>> What is there to win? >> >> the existence of God has not been proven, the non-existence of God >> cannot be proven, ergo agnostics win! :) > >The non-existence of all the 30,000+ gods known to have been worshipped by >mankind also cannot be proven and the existence of only a few of them >_can_ be proven. Are you agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc., etc.? Just to satisfy my curiosity, which ones can be proven? Their existence, that is, not their purported works. And not the sun or fire, both of which have been claimed to be gods in their own right, but aren't. -- 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 | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 23:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb7rpe$c3q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109906 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:44:03 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:07:20 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in > sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: > >>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:02:22 +1100, felix wrote: >> >>> On 01-March-2016 6:54 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:05:01 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>> Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>>>>>> Imbecile. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Prove me wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See how that works? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I suppose not... >>>>>> >>>>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the >>>>>> same fallacy. >>>>> Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable >>>>> consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually >>>>> acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly >>>>> existence! >>>>> >>>>> So the agnostics win! >>>> What is there to win? >>> >>> the existence of God has not been proven, the non-existence of God >>> cannot be proven, ergo agnostics win! :) >> >>The non-existence of all the 30,000+ gods known to have been worshipped >>by mankind also cannot be proven and the existence of only a few of them >>_can_ be proven. Are you agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc., etc.? > > Just to satisfy my curiosity, which ones can be proven? Their existence, > that is, not their purported works. And not the sun or fire, both of > which have been claimed to be gods in their own right, but aren't. The sun certainly has been worshipped as a god by several ancient groups, but there are also the Pharaohs, several of the Caesars and Prince Philip, all of whom have been or are worshipped as gods by various groups of people and whom are known to (have) exist(ed). The moon (Seline) and the earth (Gaia) have also been worshipped as gods. I've not heard of fire being worshipped as a god, although it could have been, so I'll accept your claim. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <1i3hdb9rdrbvga94gpll0p9s0l6ncg4oth@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109922 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:08:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:44:03 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:07:20 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >> >>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:02:22 +1100, felix wrote: >>> >>>> On 01-March-2016 6:54 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:05:01 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>>> Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>>>>>>> Imbecile. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Prove me wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See how that works? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, I suppose not... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the >>>>>>> same fallacy. >>>>>> Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable >>>>>> consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually >>>>>> acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly >>>>>> existence! >>>>>> >>>>>> So the agnostics win! >>>>> What is there to win? >>>> >>>> the existence of God has not been proven, the non-existence of God >>>> cannot be proven, ergo agnostics win! :) >>> >>>The non-existence of all the 30,000+ gods known to have been worshipped >>>by mankind also cannot be proven and the existence of only a few of them >>>_can_ be proven. Are you agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc., etc.? >> >> Just to satisfy my curiosity, which ones can be proven? Their existence, >> that is, not their purported works. And not the sun or fire, both of >> which have been claimed to be gods in their own right, but aren't. > >The sun certainly has been worshipped as a god by several ancient groups, >but there are also the Pharaohs, several of the Caesars and Prince Philip, >all of whom have been or are worshipped as gods by various groups of >people and whom are known to (have) exist(ed). OK, I failed to consider the various deified rulers; I believe the last *official* one (ignoring any purported deification of Prince Philip) was Hirohito. Point taken; I was only thinking of "god" gods, if you get the distinction. >The moon (Seline) and the earth (Gaia) have also been worshipped as gods. >I've not heard of fire being worshipped as a god, although it could have >been, so I'll accept your claim. It was a bit overstated; sorry. As I understand it, Ahura Mazda was frequently *represented* by fire; the fire wasn't actually a deity. -- 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 | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbadlr$hkp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109957 |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:25:11 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:08:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in > sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: > >>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:44:03 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:07:20 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in >>> sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >>> >>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:02:22 +1100, felix wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 01-March-2016 6:54 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:05:01 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>>>> Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>>>>>>>> Imbecile. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prove me wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See how that works? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, I suppose not... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating >>>>>>>> the same fallacy. >>>>>>> Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable >>>>>>> consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any >>>>>>> mutually acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of >>>>>>> godly existence! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the agnostics win! >>>>>> What is there to win? >>>>> >>>>> the existence of God has not been proven, the non-existence of God >>>>> cannot be proven, ergo agnostics win! :) >>>> >>>>The non-existence of all the 30,000+ gods known to have been >>>>worshipped by mankind also cannot be proven and the existence of only >>>>a few of them _can_ be proven. Are you agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Ra, >>>>etc., etc.? >>> >>> Just to satisfy my curiosity, which ones can be proven? Their >>> existence, >>> that is, not their purported works. And not the sun or fire, both of >>> which have been claimed to be gods in their own right, but aren't. >> >>The sun certainly has been worshipped as a god by several ancient >>groups, but there are also the Pharaohs, several of the Caesars and >>Prince Philip, >>all of whom have been or are worshipped as gods by various groups of >>people and whom are known to (have) exist(ed). > > OK, I failed to consider the various deified rulers; I believe the last > *official* one (ignoring any purported deification of Prince Philip) was > Hirohito. Point taken; I was only thinking of "god" gods, if you get the > distinction. Prince Philip is worshipped as a god by some South Seas islanders. I'll also add the Kim family (N.Korea) and Haili Selassie (Rastafarians) for your consideration. >>The moon (Seline) and the earth (Gaia) have also been worshipped as >>gods. I've not heard of fire being worshipped as a god, although it >>could have been, so I'll accept your claim. > > It was a bit overstated; sorry. As I understand it, Ahura Mazda was > frequently *represented* by fire; the fire wasn't actually a deity. That doesn't rule out it being seen as a god by other ancient peoples elsewhere in the world, but I have no evidence for that. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 19:50 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djl3hqF3uloU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109835 |
On 01-March-2016 6:05 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > In article <9701lp.gq1.19.2@news.alt.net>, > Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>> Imbecile. >>> >>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>> >>> Prove me wrong. >>> >>> See how that works? >>> >>> Well, I suppose not... >> >> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same >> fallacy. > Unless there is some mutually agreed upon and mutually detectable > consequence of godly existence, there cannot be either any mutually > acceptable proof of either godly existence or lack of godly existence! > > So the agnostics win! agnostics always win! :) -- "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 | 2016-03-01 21:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <qujcdbtbu5rinrfv8hnl2o3ptspfk8gmoa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109834 |
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 06:16:55 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 2016-02-29 21:57, mur@. a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We don't believe in a
>>>> sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in
>>>> them anymore.
>>>
>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist.
>>
>> Imbecile.
>>
>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon.
But you like BO are one of "We" who don't believe that the sun and moon
exist.
>> Prove me wrong.
>>
>> See how that works?
>>
>> Well, I suppose not...
>
>
>He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same
>fallacy.
>
>You know that fits the definition of insanity, doesn't it? Doing the same
>thing over and over and expecting difference results.
So you're saying it's insanity to believe that any of you stupid atheists
could ever get as "far" as an obvious basic starting line regarding the
possibility of there being a God associated with this planet.
>The use and constant repeating of the same fallacy filled arguments and
>then he expects different results fits the above definition of insanity.
I point out significant aspects of the situation that you people appear too
stupid to comprehend, and I challenge you to explain aspects of your own
position that you can't even attempt to explain. The only thing that could make
it "insanity" for me to continue defeating all of you in these ways would be if
I didn't enjoy defeating all of you so easily and so entirely. To continue
considering the possibility that any of you might eventually be able to reach an
easy basic starting line, and possibly even move on from there if any of you
ever could, isn't insanity. It might be underestimating how stupid and mentally
restricted every one of you is as an individual, and also how stupid and
mentally restricted all of you are as a group, but that's not insanity. It's
just overestimating the mental potential of people who are horribly restricted
for whatever reasons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 15:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <973nf4.rs3.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109895 |
<mur@.> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 06:16:55 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Le 2016-02-29 21:57, mur@. a écrit : >>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We don't believe in a >>>>> sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in >>>>> them anymore. >>>> >>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>> >>> Imbecile. >>> >>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. > > But you like BO are one of "We" who don't believe that the sun and moon > exist. Where did you get that idea? >>> Prove me wrong. >>> >>> See how that works? >>> >>> Well, I suppose not... >> >> >> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same >> fallacy. >> >> You know that fits the definition of insanity, doesn't it? Doing the same >> thing over and over and expecting difference results. > > So you're saying it's insanity to believe that any of you stupid atheists > could ever get as "far" as an obvious basic starting line regarding the > possibility of there being a God associated with this planet. I am say you keep repeat the same supposition with no evidence, is an act of insanity. Your claim, your burden of evidence. Myths are not evidence. >> The use and constant repeating of the same fallacy filled arguments and >> then he expects different results fits the above definition of insanity. > > I point out significant aspects of the situation that you people appear too > stupid to comprehend, and I challenge you to explain aspects of your own > position that you can't even attempt to explain. The only thing that could make > it "insanity" for me to continue defeating all of you in these ways would be if > I didn't enjoy defeating all of you so easily and so entirely. To continue > considering the possibility that any of you might eventually be able to reach an > easy basic starting line, and possibly even move on from there if any of you > ever could, isn't insanity. It might be underestimating how stupid and mentally > restricted every one of you is as an individual, and also how stupid and > mentally restricted all of you are as a group, but that's not insanity. It's > just overestimating the mental potential of people who are horribly restricted > for whatever reasons. > Sorry that's nonsense, try again. The burden of proof is yours not the atheist. Beliefs do not enter the picture, it requires evidence. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <q0cfdbliquahn6jcd7t60pc7m9q86o84ur@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109900 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:47:14 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
><mur@.> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 06:16:55 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Le 2016-02-29 21:57, mur@. a écrit :
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't believe in a
>>>>>> sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in
>>>>>> them anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Imbecile.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon.
>>
>> But you like BO are one of "We" who don't believe that the sun and moon
>> exist.
>
>Where did you get that idea?
"We don't believe in a sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them,
but few believe in them anymore."
>>>> Prove me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> See how that works?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I suppose not...
>>>
>>>
>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same
>>> fallacy.
>>>
>>> You know that fits the definition of insanity, doesn't it? Doing the same
>>> thing over and over and expecting difference results.
>>
>> So you're saying it's insanity to believe that any of you stupid atheists
>> could ever get as "far" as an obvious basic starting line regarding the
>> possibility of there being a God associated with this planet.
>
>I am say you keep repeat the same supposition with no evidence, is an act
>of insanity. Your claim,
What claim? Present your quotes.
>your burden of evidence. Myths are not evidence.
>
>>> The use and constant repeating of the same fallacy filled arguments and
>>> then he expects different results fits the above definition of insanity.
>>
>> I point out significant aspects of the situation that you people appear too
>> stupid to comprehend, and I challenge you to explain aspects of your own
>> position that you can't even attempt to explain. The only thing that could make
>> it "insanity" for me to continue defeating all of you in these ways would be if
>> I didn't enjoy defeating all of you so easily and so entirely. To continue
>> considering the possibility that any of you might eventually be able to reach an
>> easy basic starting line, and possibly even move on from there if any of you
>> ever could, isn't insanity. It might be underestimating how stupid and mentally
>> restricted every one of you is as an individual, and also how stupid and
>> mentally restricted all of you are as a group, but that's not insanity. It's
>> just overestimating the mental potential of people who are horribly restricted
>> for whatever reasons.
>
>Sorry that's nonsense
It's a fact you don't happen to like apparently, but a fact none the less.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 17:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <976i3v.86n.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109933 |
<mur@.> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:47:14 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> <mur@.> wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 06:16:55 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Le 2016-02-29 21:57, mur@. a écrit : >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We don't believe in a >>>>>>> sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in >>>>>>> them anymore. >>>>>> >>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist. >>>>> >>>>> Imbecile. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon. >>> >>> But you like BO are one of "We" who don't believe that the sun and moon >>> exist. >> >> Where did you get that idea? > > "We don't believe in a sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, > but few believe in them anymore." We know about the sun and moon, we suspect more about them. It is pain you do not understand the word belief deals with faith, not knowledge. But then you would use you personal bias in such a way. Beliefs deal with imagination and faith. Knowledge deals with facts and evidence. I can properly not use the word "believe" when it deals with knowledge. >>>>> Prove me wrong. >>>>> >>>>> See how that works? >>>>> >>>>> Well, I suppose not... >>>> >>>> >>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same >>>> fallacy. >>>> >>>> You know that fits the definition of insanity, doesn't it? Doing the same >>>> thing over and over and expecting difference results. >>> >>> So you're saying it's insanity to believe that any of you stupid atheists >>> could ever get as "far" as an obvious basic starting line regarding the >>> possibility of there being a God associated with this planet. >> >> I am say you keep repeat the same supposition with no evidence, is an act >> of insanity. Your claim, > > What claim? Present your quotes. > >> your burden of evidence. Myths are not evidence. >> >>>> The use and constant repeating of the same fallacy filled arguments and >>>> then he expects different results fits the above definition of insanity. >>> >>> I point out significant aspects of the situation that you people appear too >>> stupid to comprehend, and I challenge you to explain aspects of your own >>> position that you can't even attempt to explain. The only thing that could make >>> it "insanity" for me to continue defeating all of you in these ways would be if >>> I didn't enjoy defeating all of you so easily and so entirely. To continue >>> considering the possibility that any of you might eventually be able to reach an >>> easy basic starting line, and possibly even move on from there if any of you >>> ever could, isn't insanity. It might be underestimating how stupid and mentally >>> restricted every one of you is as an individual, and also how stupid and >>> mentally restricted all of you are as a group, but that's not insanity. It's >>> just overestimating the mental potential of people who are horribly restricted >>> for whatever reasons. >> >> Sorry that's nonsense > > It's a fact you don't happen to like apparently, but a fact none the less. > -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <mgshdbt7de0brfbbmcm6e66h5o3jm510to@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109943 |
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:34:21 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
><mur@.> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:47:14 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <mur@.> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 06:16:55 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Le 2016-02-29 21:57, mur@. a écrit :
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We don't believe in a
>>>>>>>> sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in
>>>>>>>> them anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Present your arguments that they don't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imbecile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the center of the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> But you like BO are one of "We" who don't believe that the sun and moon
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> Where did you get that idea?
>>
>> "We don't believe in a sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them,
>> but few believe in them anymore."
>
>We know about the sun and moon, we suspect more about them. It is pain you
>do not understand the word belief deals with faith, not knowledge. But then
>you would use you personal bias in such a way.
>
>Beliefs deal with imagination and faith.
>
>Knowledge deals with facts and evidence. I can properly not use the word
>"believe" when it deals with knowledge.
>
>>>>>> Prove me wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See how that works?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I suppose not...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He lacks the ability to use logic. That why he keeps repeating the same
>>>>> fallacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know that fits the definition of insanity, doesn't it? Doing the same
>>>>> thing over and over and expecting difference results.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying it's insanity to believe that any of you stupid atheists
>>>> could ever get as "far" as an obvious basic starting line regarding the
>>>> possibility of there being a God associated with this planet.
>>>
>>> I am say you keep repeat the same supposition with no evidence, is an act
>>> of insanity. Your claim,
>>
>> What claim? Present your quotes.
>>
>>> your burden of evidence. Myths are not evidence.
>>>
>>>>> The use and constant repeating of the same fallacy filled arguments and
>>>>> then he expects different results fits the above definition of insanity.
>>>>
>>>> I point out significant aspects of the situation that you people appear too
>>>> stupid to comprehend, and I challenge you to explain aspects of your own
>>>> position that you can't even attempt to explain. The only thing that could make
>>>> it "insanity" for me to continue defeating all of you in these ways would be if
>>>> I didn't enjoy defeating all of you so easily and so entirely. To continue
>>>> considering the possibility that any of you might eventually be able to reach an
>>>> easy basic starting line, and possibly even move on from there if any of you
>>>> ever could, isn't insanity. It might be underestimating how stupid and mentally
>>>> restricted every one of you is as an individual, and also how stupid and
>>>> mentally restricted all of you are as a group, but that's not insanity. It's
>>>> just overestimating the mental potential of people who are horribly restricted
>>>> for whatever reasons.
>>>
>>> Sorry that's nonsense
>>
>> It's a fact you don't happen to like apparently, but a fact none the less.
>
>Yep it is
Yep it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 06:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <G4iBy.31377$nR7.23741@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #109830 |
On 2/29/2016 6:57 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> <mur@.> wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>>>>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>>>>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>>>>>>>>> away". >>>>>>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>>>>>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>>>>>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>>>>>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>>>>>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>>>>>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>>>>>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>>>>>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>>>>>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >>>>>>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>>>>>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>>>>>>>> they call him or what they think about him. >>>>>>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most >>>>>>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the >>>>>>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their >>>>>>>> one and only deity. >>>>>>> it's merely a view or opinion. >>>>>> May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and >>>>>> moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon >>>>>> as well as a creator, or different somehow? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying >>>>> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not >>>> >>>> I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If one >>>> was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and not >>>> provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting evidence is >>>> one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods. >>>> >>>> The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and >>>> contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods indicate >>>> the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound. >>> >>> So the multitude of every belief about the sun and moon and the multitude of >>> diverse and contradictory belief about the sun and moon indicate the premise >>> suggested in number two is logically unsound in your opinion. >>> >> >> It has been a long time since modern man worshiped the sun and moon. I >> don't know about how you worship but a great deal is known about the sun >> and the moon, there is a great deal to still learn. We don't believe in a >> sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in >> them anymore. > > Present your arguments that they don't exist. He didn't say they don't exist. People don't worship them any more. Present your arguments that people worship them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 19:48 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djl3djF3uloU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109791 |
On 29-February-2016 4:57 AM, Bob Officer wrote: > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>>>>>> Doesn't. >>>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>>>>>> away". >>>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >>>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>>>>> they call him or what they think about him. >>>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most >>>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the >>>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their >>>>> one and only deity. >>>> it's merely a view or opinion. >>> May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and >>> moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon >>> as well as a creator, or different somehow? >> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying >> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not > I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If one > was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and not > provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting evidence is > one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods. > > The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and > contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods indicate > the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound. > > I see no difficulty with it (number 2) whatsoever -- "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]
Page 3 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web