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 7 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 24 Next page →
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbaec5$j01$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109960 |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:36:18 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 12:44:23 -0600, the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:30:29 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared in >>>> sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>>>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >>>>> >>>>> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >>>> >>>> It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written by >>>> people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good enough. >>> >>> But only for those who already believe - rationalisation and >>> confirmation bias aren't evidence. >> >> Perhaps I was unclear: While some theists consider the Bible, Quran, >> Vedas etc. to be evidence, I don't. > > Treat those as any other collection of myths. If you consider those > fictional works as evidence, then you will find people trying to > introduce other works of fiction as evidence. Imaging a world where some > fictional works are taken a evidence. You're too late, Bob. About a year ago I was in a group of atheists who declared "Lord of the Rings" a holy book, exactly as the Council of Nicaea did with the bible. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977f3q.eb0.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109978 |
Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:36:18 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > >> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 12:44:23 -0600, the following appeared in >>> sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>> >>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:30:29 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared in >>>>> sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>>>>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >>>>>> >>>>>> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >>>>> >>>>> It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written by >>>>> people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good enough. >>>> >>>> But only for those who already believe - rationalisation and >>>> confirmation bias aren't evidence. >>> >>> Perhaps I was unclear: While some theists consider the Bible, Quran, >>> Vedas etc. to be evidence, I don't. >> >> Treat those as any other collection of myths. If you consider those >> fictional works as evidence, then you will find people trying to >> introduce other works of fiction as evidence. Imaging a world where some >> fictional works are taken a evidence. > > You're too late, Bob. About a year ago I was in a group of atheists who > declared "Lord of the Rings" a holy book, exactly as the Council of Nicaea > did with the bible. > If I remember fully, there are far fewer inconsistencies in LotRs than the bible. JRRT is an excellent writer. When you look at the the finished tales I can see why they declared LotR a holy book. It even teaches moralistic lessons. -- 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 | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 18:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djoqnaF3d09U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109903 |
On 02/03/2016 18:30, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>> evidence. >>>>> >>>> >>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>> >>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >> >> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. > > It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written > by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good > enough. I wonder what would happen to someone today who > stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it > contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; > check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any > church accusation regarding "antiChrists". That's really the kicker. We can see this in the criminal justice system every day: juries are very prone to being impressed and swayed by eyewitness testimony and personal statements from any persons involved, never mind that all the actual scientific data says that this is the most unreliable sort of evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 12:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aaa-61F643.12191702032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109908 |
In article <djoqnaF3d09U1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 02/03/2016 18:30, Bob Casanova wrote: > > On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared > > in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > > <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > > > >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer > >> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: > >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting > >>>>> evidence. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. > >>> > >>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. > >>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. > >> > >> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. > > > > It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written > > by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good > > enough. I wonder what would happen to someone today who > > stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it > > contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; > > check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any > > church accusation regarding "antiChrists". > > That's really the kicker. > > We can see this in the criminal justice system every day: juries are > very prone to being impressed and swayed by eyewitness testimony and > personal statements from any persons involved, never mind that all the > actual scientific data says that this is the most unreliable sort of > evidence. While eyewitness evidence may not be "the most unreliable sort of evidence", it is certainly not reliable enough to justify mutually incompatible beliefs in mutually incompatible gods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djqqk0Filj7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109912 |
On 02/03/2016 19:19, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > In article <djoqnaF3d09U1@mid.individual.net>, > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 02/03/2016 18:30, Bob Casanova wrote: >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>> >>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>>>> >>>>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >>>> >>>> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >>> >>> It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written >>> by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good >>> enough. I wonder what would happen to someone today who >>> stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it >>> contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; >>> check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any >>> church accusation regarding "antiChrists". >> >> That's really the kicker. >> >> We can see this in the criminal justice system every day: juries are >> very prone to being impressed and swayed by eyewitness testimony and >> personal statements from any persons involved, never mind that all the >> actual scientific data says that this is the most unreliable sort of >> evidence. > > While eyewitness evidence may not be "the most unreliable sort of > evidence", it is certainly not reliable enough to justify mutually > incompatible beliefs in mutually incompatible gods. > It is not reliable enough to justify anything, IMO. But it does show that we humans are predisposed to give it far more weight than it deserves. A believer standing up in a church service and "testifying" that prayer and god's love cured her of cancer makes a far bigger impression than a whole room full of doctors and scientists with studies and hard medical evidence to prove that it was really her chemotherapy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <er4hdbppb2pevvdudl294dhdgnte35hpu0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109937 |
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:56:32 +0000, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>: >On 02/03/2016 19:19, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> In article <djoqnaF3d09U1@mid.individual.net>, >> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 02/03/2016 18:30, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>>>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >>>>> >>>>> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >>>> >>>> It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written >>>> by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good >>>> enough. I wonder what would happen to someone today who >>>> stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it >>>> contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; >>>> check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any >>>> church accusation regarding "antiChrists". >>> >>> That's really the kicker. >>> >>> We can see this in the criminal justice system every day: juries are >>> very prone to being impressed and swayed by eyewitness testimony and >>> personal statements from any persons involved, never mind that all the >>> actual scientific data says that this is the most unreliable sort of >>> evidence. >> >> While eyewitness evidence may not be "the most unreliable sort of >> evidence", it is certainly not reliable enough to justify mutually >> incompatible beliefs in mutually incompatible gods. >> > >It is not reliable enough to justify anything, IMO. >But it does show that we humans are predisposed to give it far more >weight than it deserves. A believer standing up in a church service and >"testifying" that prayer and god's love cured her of cancer makes a far >bigger impression than a whole room full of doctors and scientists with >studies and hard medical evidence to prove that it was really her >chemotherapy. And a person standing up in church and making *exactly* the same claims made in the Bible, but with respect to himself (i.e.. "I'm the Second Coming"), better have a good set of track shoes. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 10:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ojugdbdcohclgp08cj4sr232ogch16lp8r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109908 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:46:02 +0000, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>: >On 02/03/2016 18:30, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:25:29 -0600, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>> evidence. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. >>>> >>>> Actually there isn't lots of evidence. >>>> That's the fallacy of wishful hoping. >>> >>> But there must be, otherwise he wouldn't believe it. >> >> It all depends on what one considers evidence. Words written >> by people who *claimed* to speak for God seem to be good >> enough. I wonder what would happen to someone today who >> stood up in church and made the same claim, especially if it >> contradicted doctrine? Oh, wait, I don't have to wonder; >> check out the Thirty Years' War for an example, or any >> church accusation regarding "antiChrists". > >That's really the kicker. > >We can see this in the criminal justice system every day: juries are >very prone to being impressed and swayed by eyewitness testimony and >personal statements from any persons involved, never mind that all the >actual scientific data says that this is the most unreliable sort of >evidence. Yep. Ask 3 eyewitnesses, get 3 (or maybe more, if enough time has passed) accounts. It's basically all anecdotal. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 21:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <eejcdb970bnv6gam1gt7d4iv0kqujgq54d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109838 |
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 19:44:51 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 28-February-2016 3:37 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <mur@.> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor
>>>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far"
>>>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't.
>>>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to
>>>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go
>>>>>>>> away".
>>>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian
>>>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they
>>>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of
>>>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch
>>>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a
>>>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when
>>>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking
>>>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs,
>>>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all?
>>>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>>>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>>>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim.
>>>> There is ONLY evidence to support what I pointed out.
>>>>
>>>>> Matter of fact most
>>>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the
>>>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their
>>>>> one and only deity.
>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>>>> That's one basic starting line strong atheists can't get as "far" as. Putting
>>>>>> faith in the possibility that no beings from outside this star system ever had
>>>>> Faith? That is something dogmatic in nature taken as being true without
>>>>> evidence or even in the face of contradictory evidence.
>>>> Faith is the amount of confidence you have that a belief is correct.
>>>>
>>> or rather more correctly.. faith refers to the amount of confidence one
>>> has that a belief is correct. so there can be a little faith in some
>>> beliefs or a lot
>>>
>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or
>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in
>> dogmatic beliefs.
>>
>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in
>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no
>> gods exist.
>
>so he doesn't believe in gods. why complicate something that's really
>quite simple? why are atheists so unwilling to admit that? or as mur
>says "ashamed" to admit it.
Horribly ashamed. Are you ashamed of the things you believe don't exist,
like the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause? I'm not, and would be more
ashamed to say I don't believe there are no such beings associated with this
than to say I do believe there are none. These atheists are in the opposite
position, obviously ashamed of their own belief, yet for whatever reasons afraid
to try to rise above the position they're in and obviously ashamed of. Over and
over their own behaviour makes them evidence of God's existence by being
evidence that something like Satan is influencing weak human minds like theirs.
>> There is no need to make up something which has not supporting
>> evidence.
>>
>
>there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <bkf7db53uf2u858utat8b0n001ns3opiac@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109783 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:23:39 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>On 28-February-2016 3:37 PM, mur@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <mur@.> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor
>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far"
>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence
>>>>>>> Doesn't.
>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to
>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go
>>>>>> away".
>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian
>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they
>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of
>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch
>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a
>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when
>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking
>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods?
>>>>>
>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs,
>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all?
>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim.
>> There is ONLY evidence to support what I pointed out.
>>
>>> Matter of fact most
>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the
>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their
>>> one and only deity.
>> So what?
>>
>>>> That's one basic starting line strong atheists can't get as "far" as. Putting
>>>> faith in the possibility that no beings from outside this star system ever had
>>> Faith? That is something dogmatic in nature taken as being true without
>>> evidence or even in the face of contradictory evidence.
>> Faith is the amount of confidence you have that a belief is correct.
>>
>
>or rather more correctly.. faith refers to the amount of confidence one
>has that a belief is correct. so there can be a little faith in some
>beliefs or a lot
That's one of the most easy and basic starting lines these people can't get
as "far" as.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 08:15 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djei3cFe3pnU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109754 |
On 25-February-2016 9:06 AM, Bob Officer 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? > of course -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <mfjvcbdr9sm6p4v4t6n4t51saaqqiidh8r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109753 |
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:33:30 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>he can't comprehend what I wrote
In contrast to that lie I pointed out things related to what you wrote that
you can't comprehend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <bfjvcb50m39sbr0cic35sj0mes9lt00ap0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109750 |
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:21 -0500, 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 it
>>will change things a LOT on this planet, so if he does exist and wants things to
>>be as they are he's....LOL....not going to provide it. That's so easy, and so
>>obvious, and such a BASIC starting line in regards to thinking about all this,
>>but none of you people can ever get that "far". The biggest question in regards
>>to that FACT is WHY can't you get to that starting line? What prevents you?
>
>Doesn't.
What sort of "Doesn't" do you want people to think is somehow preventing you
and how do you want people to think it's doing so, do you have any idea?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 21:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <806qcb53sgsmebjr8ntuvue80o6n7360pj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109696 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>
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.
Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief.
>"There's no God"
Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to pretend
there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it.
>is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
All are entirely faith based, and I have no faith in any of those beliefs
being correct. I do have faith in the belief that there's no Easter Bunny or
Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy going to millions of people's homes in one night on
this planet, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit I have faith that there
are no such beings doing those things on Earth. In fact I'd be more ashamed to
deny my faith about it, since that would be the much more stupid position imo.
>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.
What sort of evidence do you think there should be, where do you think it
should be, why do you think it should be available to humans, and when do you
think it should be or should have been made available, if there is a God
associated with Earth? Since you can't even attempt to answer, it's obvious that
the conclusion your guess has caused you to put your faith (that you're ashamed
of) in is entirely faith based and has nothing to do with any evidence that is
or is not available to humans on this planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 08:12 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djehsuFe3pnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109749 |
On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> > 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. > Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. > >> "There's no God" > Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to pretend > there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it. > >> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. > All are entirely faith based, his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief is just crazy. and of course one has faith in their belief being correct, or they wouldn't have the belief! > and I have no faith in any of those beliefs > being correct. I do have faith in the belief that there's no Easter Bunny or > Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy going to millions of people's homes in one night on > this planet, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit I have faith that there > are no such beings doing those things on Earth. In fact I'd be more ashamed to > deny my faith about it, since that would be the much more stupid position imo. of course > >> 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. > What sort of evidence do you think there should be, where do you think it > should be, why do you think it should be available to humans, and when do you > think it should be or should have been made available, if there is a God > associated with Earth? Since you can't even attempt to answer, it's obvious that > the conclusion your guess has caused you to put your faith (that you're ashamed > of) in is entirely faith based and has nothing to do with any evidence that is > or is not available to humans on this planet. -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 19:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-D097AC.19151027022016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109768 |
In article <djehsuFe3pnU1@mid.individual.net>, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Christopher A. Lee > > <c.lee@fairpoint.net> > > 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. > > Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. > > > >> "There's no God" > > Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to > > pretend > > there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it. > > > >> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no > >> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. > > All are entirely faith based, > > his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is > staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief > is just crazy. But almost none of us have any such belief. -- JD "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 22:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <natp86$6ca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109775 |
On 2/27/2016 10:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <djehsuFe3pnU1@mid.individual.net>, > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >> On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> >>> 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. >>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. >>> >>>> "There's no God" >>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to >>> pretend >>> there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it. >>> >>>> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>> All are entirely faith based, >> >> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is >> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief >> is just crazy. > > But almost none of us have any such belief. You may not call it a belief, but that's what it is. When I slam on brakes to avoid hitting a squirrel, I don't call it "rapid deceleration", but that's what it is. It's alright if you don't want to call it a belief, it's alright if you despise the word belief. No one is saying you have to use that word. Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe in God", or anything similar to that, there are people standing (or sitting) around you who know that what you are really saying is, "I believe there is no God." It's just that simple. No more, and no less
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 16:03 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djfdg7Fk79rU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109776 |
On 28-February-2016 2:26 PM, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 2/27/2016 10:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> In article <djehsuFe3pnU1@mid.individual.net>, >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Christopher A. Lee >>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> >>>> 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. >>>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. >>>> >>>>> "There's no God" >>>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to >>>> pretend >>>> there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it. >>>> >>>>> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>> All are entirely faith based, >>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is >>> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief >>> is just crazy. >> But almost none of us have any such belief. > You may not call it a belief, but that's what it is. > > When I slam on brakes to avoid hitting a squirrel, I don't call it > "rapid deceleration", but that's what it is. > > It's alright if you don't want to call it a belief, it's alright if you > despise the word belief. > No one is saying you have to use that word. > > Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe in God", or anything > similar to that, there are people standing (or sitting) around you who > know that what you are really saying is, "I believe there is no God." > > It's just that simple. No more, and no less > > > exactly -- "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 | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 01:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ot65db12caqrr3k3kolvu1rjnqm0ak8fo4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109781 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:03:22 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >On 28-February-2016 2:26 PM, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 2/27/2016 10:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>> In article <djehsuFe3pnU1@mid.individual.net>, >>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Christopher A. Lee >>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> >>>>> 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. >>>>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. >>>>> >>>>>> "There's no God" >>>>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to >>>>> pretend >>>>> there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it. >>>>> >>>>>> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>> All are entirely faith based, >>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is >>>> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief >>>> is just crazy. >>> But almost none of us have any such belief. >> You may not call it a belief, but that's what it is. Yet another arrogantly nasty, lying theist. >> When I slam on brakes to avoid hitting a squirrel, I don't call it >> "rapid deceleration", but that's what it is. >> >> It's alright if you don't want to call it a belief, it's alright if you >> despise the word belief. Belief has a whole spectrum of meanings - none of which describe its absence. But theists replace whatever less ambiguous words you use, with it and then claim its the same kind of belief as theirs. >> No one is saying you have to use that word. >> >> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe in God", or anything >> similar to that, there are people standing (or sitting) around you who >> know that what you are really saying is, "I believe there is no God." What a fucking moron. >> It's just that simple. No more, and no less No - they *think* that - because they are stupid and can't tell the difference between not doing something and doing its opposite. It's just that simple, No more, and no less. They imagine the whole world revolves around their god, even for atheists, and are too stupid to understand that it's merely something somebody else believes as part of their religion, that is unimportant and irrelevant outside it. Because Christianity erects walls around their minds to keep out anything that conflicts with their beliefs, and a side effect of this is that it prevents their understanding others. It also prevents empathy so they see nothing wrong with their behaviour towards non-Christians, They're not mind readers, even though they arrogantly and nastily imagine they get to tell us they know what is in our minds better than we do ourselves, and that we're perjuring ourselves when we correct them after they got it wrong the first time. >exactly No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <fqdsdbh268tkovchj8cj027427vuf9l619@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109786 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 01:15:26 -0600, Wuss Lee wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:03:22 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 28-February-2016 2:26 PM, Robert Duncan wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2016 10:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article <djehsuFe3pnU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There's no God"
>>>>>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to
>>>>>> pretend
>>>>>> there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>> All are entirely faith based,
>>>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is
>>>>> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief
>>>>> is just crazy.
>>>> But almost none of us have any such belief.
>>> You may not call it a belief, but that's what it is.
>
>Yet another arrogantly nasty, lying theist.
>
>>> When I slam on brakes to avoid hitting a squirrel, I don't call it
>>> "rapid deceleration", but that's what it is.
>>>
>>> It's alright if you don't want to call it a belief, it's alright if you
>>> despise the word belief.
>
>Belief has a whole spectrum of meanings - none of which describe its
>absence.
>
>But theists replace whatever less ambiguous words you use, with it and
>then claim its the same kind of belief as theirs.
>
>>> No one is saying you have to use that word.
>>>
>>> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe in God", or anything
>>> similar to that, there are people standing (or sitting) around you who
>>> know that what you are really saying is, "I believe there is no God."
>
>What a fucking moron.
>
>>> It's just that simple. No more, and no less
>
>No - they *think* that - because they are stupid and can't tell the
>difference between not doing something and doing its opposite.
>
>It's just that simple, No more, and no less.
>
>They imagine the whole world revolves around their god, even for
>atheists, and are too stupid to understand that it's merely something
>somebody else believes as part of their religion, that is unimportant
>and irrelevant outside it.
>
>Because Christianity erects walls around their minds to keep out
>anything that conflicts with their beliefs, and a side effect of this
>is that it prevents their understanding others.
>
>It also prevents empathy so they see nothing wrong with their
>behaviour towards non-Christians,
>
>They're not mind readers, even though they arrogantly and nastily
>imagine they get to tell us they know what is in our minds better than
>we do ourselves, and that we're perjuring ourselves when we correct
>them after they got it wrong the first time.
Try to present any evidence that you're mentally capable of realistically
considering the possibility that any sort of god exists anywhere in the
universe. Not some stupid unrealistic shit you morons pathetically pretend to
consider as an attempted insult to the idea even though in reality it's an
insult to you and all your horribly mentally restricted brethren, but that YOU
actually ARE CAPABLE of realistically considering the possibility. You can't
even make the attempt, because it's so far beyond your mental ability you can't
even pretend it's not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "wagner" <wagner@dont-email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 03:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <21b1da3778069ac90453e82fe15cb461@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #110192 |
In article <fqdsdbh268tkovchj8cj027427vuf9l619@4ax.com> mur@. wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 01:15:26 -0600, Wuss Lee wrote: > > >On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:03:22 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > > > >>On 28-February-2016 2:26 PM, Robert Duncan wrote: > >>> On 2/27/2016 10:15 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >>>> In article <djehsuFe3pnU1@mid.individual.net>, > >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Christopher A. Lee > >>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> "There's no God" > >>>>>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to > >>>>>> pretend > >>>>>> there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no > >>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. > >>>>>> All are entirely faith based, > >>>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is > >>>>> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief > >>>>> is just crazy. > >>>> But almost none of us have any such belief. > >>> You may not call it a belief, but that's what it is. > > > >Yet another arrogantly nasty, lying theist. > > > >>> When I slam on brakes to avoid hitting a squirrel, I don't call it > >>> "rapid deceleration", but that's what it is. > >>> > >>> It's alright if you don't want to call it a belief, it's alright if you > >>> despise the word belief. > > > >Belief has a whole spectrum of meanings - none of which describe its > >absence. > > > >But theists replace whatever less ambiguous words you use, with it and > >then claim its the same kind of belief as theirs. > > > >>> No one is saying you have to use that word. > >>> > >>> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe in God", or anything > >>> similar to that, there are people standing (or sitting) around you who > >>> know that what you are really saying is, "I believe there is no God." > > > >What a fucking moron. > > > >>> It's just that simple. No more, and no less > > > >No - they *think* that - because they are stupid and can't tell the > >difference between not doing something and doing its opposite. > > > >It's just that simple, No more, and no less. > > > >They imagine the whole world revolves around their god, even for > >atheists, and are too stupid to understand that it's merely something > >somebody else believes as part of their religion, that is unimportant > >and irrelevant outside it. > > > >Because Christianity erects walls around their minds to keep out > >anything that conflicts with their beliefs, and a side effect of this > >is that it prevents their understanding others. > > > >It also prevents empathy so they see nothing wrong with their > >behaviour towards non-Christians, > > > >They're not mind readers, even though they arrogantly and nastily > >imagine they get to tell us they know what is in our minds better than > >we do ourselves, and that we're perjuring ourselves when we correct > >them after they got it wrong the first time. > > Try to present any evidence that you're mentally capable of realistically > considering the possibility that any sort of god exists anywhere in the > universe. Not some stupid unrealistic shit you morons pathetically pretend to > consider as an attempted insult to the idea even though in reality it's an > insult to you and all your horribly mentally restricted brethren, but that YOU > actually ARE CAPABLE of realistically considering the possibility. You can't > even make the attempt, because it's so far beyond your mental ability you can't > even pretend it's not. Lol. If you can't imagine the existence of a godly being, you have no imagination. Turn off the TV and open a book or shoot yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web