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 13 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 24 Next page →
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 16:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-DAA871.16022904032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110070 |
In article <nbd2fk$jph$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 4:39 PM, Virgil wrote: > > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > >> You're stuck on that "godly existence" stuff, aren't you? > > > > NO! You're the one stuck with a particular version of"godly existence". > > I am merely agnostic about it so have no beliefs re godly existence iin > > general either way. > > > > But since the gods posited by various religions are so often mutually > > inncompatible, I feel safe in saying they cannot all exist as described. > > There you go again. You just can't stop talking about it. > You are stuck on it. > > >> > >> That's not what this sub-thread is about. > > > > You do not get to determine what it is about! > > I believe I do. Since anyone who can post here can post anything they want to here without any let or hindrance fom Robert Duncan, it is a belief, like so many of his beliefs, clearly contrary to fact. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 18:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbd4k0$vcv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110071 |
On 3/4/2016 6:02 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <nbd2fk$jph$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 4:39 PM, Virgil wrote: >> >>> Robert Duncan wrote: >> >>>> You're stuck on that "godly existence" stuff, aren't you? >>> >>> NO! You're the one stuck with a particular version of"godly existence". >>> I am merely agnostic about it so have no beliefs re godly existence iin >>> general either way. >>> >>> But since the gods posited by various religions are so often mutually >>> inncompatible, I feel safe in saying they cannot all exist as described. >> >> There you go again. You just can't stop talking about it. >> You are stuck on it. >> >>>> >>>> That's not what this sub-thread is about. >>> >>> You do not get to determine what it is about! >> >> I believe I do. > > Since anyone who can post here can post anything they want to here > without any let or hindrance fom Robert Duncan, it is a belief, like so > many of his beliefs, clearly contrary to fact. Read what I wrote again, and then tell me what you just wrote has anything to do with it. I believe you're just trying your best to change the subject. It's not going to work. "This sub-thread started after I had finished responding to 'Wisely', when out of the blue you jumped in with some irrelevant nonsense ending with, '...you have no evidence of any wrongness by me whatsoever.' Where did that come from? What were you talking about? Why are you so paranoid? And I would still like to know where you get off thinking I had found any 'wrongness' in you in the first place. Are you normally that high-strung?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 20:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-526331.20584304032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110074 |
In article <nbd4k0$vcv$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 6:02 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <nbd2fk$jph$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/4/2016 4:39 PM, Virgil wrote: > >> > >>> Robert Duncan wrote: > >> > >>>> You're stuck on that "godly existence" stuff, aren't you? > >>> > >>> NO! You're the one stuck with a particular version of "godly existence". > >>> I am merely agnostic about it so have no beliefs re godly existences > >>> either way. > >>> > >>> But since the gods posited by various religions are so often mutually > >>> inncompatible, I feel safe in saying they cannot all exist as described. > >> > >> There you go again. You just can't stop talking about it. > >> You are stuck on it. So far, all MY talking has been in response to your own talking which makes you the one who can't stop. > >> > >>>> > >>>> That's not what this sub-thread is about. > >>> > >>> You do not get to determine what it is about! > >> > >> I believe I do. Your beliefs are what is at issue here, and so far they have not proved to be worth anything. > > > > Since anyone who can post here can post anything they want to here > > without any let or hindrance fom Robert Duncan, it is a belief, like so > > many of his beliefs, clearly contrary to fact. > > I believe you're just trying your best to change the subject. Subjects who regularly poop in their diapers, regularly need changing. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 20:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb8232$p3t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109916 |
On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <nb7e87$7nn$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>> In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> How does it feel to be living proof? >>>>>> >>>>>> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually >>>>> incompossible gods! >>>> >>>> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? >>> >>> You don't! >> >> Yes I do. > > Mere belief is not knowledge >> >>>> >>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>> >>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I dp not beeive that there is any >>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >> >> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >> >> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >> >> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" > > Not you personally and individually, but you theists collectively! >> >> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >> >> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >> wrong. > > Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the > existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of > any wrongness by me whatsoever. Now I'm talking to you. Are you happy now? Your last sentence would be applicable IF and ONLY IF I was trying to get you to believe God exists. But since I'm not, that sentence is out of place. The only thing that sentence reveals more of is your megalomania. The world does not revolve around you. So, you are wrong, in both cases. [Virgil begins to pout as spotlight pans right and fades out.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djqr02FioghU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109913 |
On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> A: I'm a monotheist. >> >> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. > > Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I > asked you. Hello, anybody home? > > Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. > > You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" > > Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? > > Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word > means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just > wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were > talking about. If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 08:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb9f48$538$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109939 |
On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: > On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > >>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>> >>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >> >> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >> >> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >> >> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" >> >> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >> >> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >> wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were >> talking about. > > If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. > Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from > Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even > disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old > Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite > and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all > infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and > cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of > infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's > precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words.... And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't you? You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". But that's to be expected from an unregenerate reprobate. In fact, that's exactly what God wants you to believe about him. "To the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you appear to be perverse." (Psalm 18:26) Just remember, one day he's going to "kill" you too. You think he's "vengeful, spiteful, violent" now, just you wait. You ain't seen nothing yet. At least back in the Old Testament days, it eventually came to an end.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 17:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <976j7k.a5h.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109941 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>>> >>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >>>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >>> >>> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >>> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >>> >>> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >>> >>> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" >>> >>> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >>> >>> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >>> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >>> wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were >>> talking about. >> >> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. >> Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from >> Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even >> disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old >> Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite >> and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all >> infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and >> cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of >> infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's >> precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words.... > > And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't you? > > You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and > distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two > thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty > of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". > > But that's to be expected from an unregenerate reprobate. In fact, > that's exactly what God wants you to believe about him. > > "To the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you > appear to be perverse." > (Psalm 18:26) > > Just remember, one day he's going to "kill" you too. > > You think he's "vengeful, spiteful, violent" now, just you wait. > You ain't seen nothing yet. > > At least back in the Old Testament days, it eventually came to an end. > And there is a prime example of circular logic. The claimant uses a verse from a book of myths claimed without evidence to be inspired by god but written by a man. This requires a priori assumption of fact without evidence, that this person wasn't in fact just an ordinary con artist pulling the wool of the people. What it appears he is doing is a sort of advice on how to fool the masses. What is it he is really saying? Could it if you see evil in me it is because you see only the evil in yourself [shifting responsibility ]. Is the writer telling people to judge only on superficial appearance and not to demand evidence or facts? It is a form of crowd/mind control/propaganda. -- 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 | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nba0nc$9hk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109946 |
On 3/3/2016 12:53 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>>>> >>>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >>>>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>>>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>>>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >>>> >>>> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >>>> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >>>> >>>> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >>>> >>>> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" >>>> >>>> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >>>> >>>> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >>>> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >>>> wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were >>>> talking about. >>> >>> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. >>> Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from >>> Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even >>> disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old >>> Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite >>> and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all >>> infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and >>> cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of >>> infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's >>> precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words.... >> >> And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't you? >> >> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >> >> But that's to be expected from an unregenerate reprobate. In fact, >> that's exactly what God wants you to believe about him. >> >> "To the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you >> appear to be perverse." >> (Psalm 18:26) >> >> Just remember, one day he's going to "kill" you too. >> >> You think he's "vengeful, spiteful, violent" now, just you wait. >> You ain't seen nothing yet. >> >> At least back in the Old Testament days, it eventually came to an end. >> > > And there is a prime example of circular logic. The claimant uses a verse > from a book of myths claimed without evidence to be inspired by god but > written by a man. This requires a priori assumption of fact without > evidence, that this person wasn't in fact just an ordinary con artist > pulling the wool of the people. No. You have it all backwards. What it requires is for you to prove that the Bible is in fact a "book of myths". No one has asked you to believe it. No one is expecting you to accept it as fact, or even as a belief. Without any provocation, you assert that the Bible is a "book of myths". So now clearly the burden of proof rests on you to prove your assertion. If you cannot do so, then we have no alternative but to classify you as a "liar". The proverbial ball is now in your court.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <976p8l.e36.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109952 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 12:53 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >>>>>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>>>>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>>>>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >>>>> >>>>> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >>>>> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >>>>> >>>>> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >>>>> >>>>> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" >>>>> >>>>> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >>>>> >>>>> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >>>>> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >>>>> wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were >>>>> talking about. >>>> >>>> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. >>>> Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from >>>> Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even >>>> disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old >>>> Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite >>>> and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all >>>> infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and >>>> cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of >>>> infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's >>>> precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words.... >>> >>> And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't you? >>> >>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>> >>> But that's to be expected from an unregenerate reprobate. In fact, >>> that's exactly what God wants you to believe about him. >>> >>> "To the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you >>> appear to be perverse." >>> (Psalm 18:26) >>> >>> Just remember, one day he's going to "kill" you too. >>> >>> You think he's "vengeful, spiteful, violent" now, just you wait. >>> You ain't seen nothing yet. >>> >>> At least back in the Old Testament days, it eventually came to an end. >>> >> >> And there is a prime example of circular logic. The claimant uses a verse >> from a book of myths claimed without evidence to be inspired by god but >> written by a man. This requires a priori assumption of fact without >> evidence, that this person wasn't in fact just an ordinary con artist >> pulling the wool of the people. > > No. You have it all backwards. > > What it requires is for you to prove that the Bible is in fact a "book > of myths". No the authority you claim in that book is your burden, not mine. It is a book of folktales and myths, not any different than any other book until to provide evidence it is other than fiction. The ball is in your court. > > No one has asked you to believe it. > > No one is expecting you to accept it as fact, or even as a belief. > > Without any provocation, you assert that the Bible is a "book of myths". > > So now clearly the burden of proof rests on you to prove your assertion. > > If you cannot do so, then we have no alternative but to classify you as > a "liar". > > The proverbial ball is now in your court. You cited from a book, the burden is yours to prove it is anything except myths and folktales > > > > -- 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 | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 14:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nba4np$pv0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109962 |
On 3/3/2016 2:36 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 12:53 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >>>>>>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>>>>>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>>>>>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >>>>>> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >>>>>> >>>>>> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >>>>>> >>>>>> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >>>>>> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >>>>>> wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were >>>>>> talking about. >>>>> >>>>> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. >>>>> Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from >>>>> Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even >>>>> disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old >>>>> Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite >>>>> and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all >>>>> infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and >>>>> cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of >>>>> infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's >>>>> precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words.... >>>> >>>> And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't you? >>>> >>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>> >>>> But that's to be expected from an unregenerate reprobate. In fact, >>>> that's exactly what God wants you to believe about him. >>>> >>>> "To the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you >>>> appear to be perverse." >>>> (Psalm 18:26) >>>> >>>> Just remember, one day he's going to "kill" you too. >>>> >>>> You think he's "vengeful, spiteful, violent" now, just you wait. >>>> You ain't seen nothing yet. >>>> >>>> At least back in the Old Testament days, it eventually came to an end. >>>> >>> >>> And there is a prime example of circular logic. The claimant uses a verse >>> from a book of myths claimed without evidence to be inspired by god but >>> written by a man. This requires a priori assumption of fact without >>> evidence, that this person wasn't in fact just an ordinary con artist >>> pulling the wool of the people. >> >> No. You have it all backwards. >> >> What it requires is for you to prove that the Bible is in fact a "book >> of myths". > > No the authority you claim in that book is your burden, not mine. My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. Beliefs need no proof. Assertions do. > It is a > book of folktales and myths, not any different than any other book until to > provide evidence it is other than fiction. That's an assertion. The burden is on you to prove it's true. The ball is in your court. >> No one has asked you to believe it. >> >> No one is expecting you to accept it as fact, or even as a belief. >> >> Without any provocation, you assert that the Bible is a "book of myths". >> >> So now clearly the burden of proof rests on you to prove your assertion. >> >> If you cannot do so, then we have no alternative but to classify you as >> a "liar". >> >> The proverbial ball is now in your court. > > You cited from a book, the burden is yours to prove it is anything except > myths and folktales Only if I were trying to get you to believe it. I was only explaining why I believe it. See how that works?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbagc5$kve$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109968 |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:56:31 -0500, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/3/2016 2:36 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/3/2016 12:53 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there >>>>>>>> is any way of either proving or disproving the existence of an >>>>>>>> abstract god, though I feel that there may very well be ways of >>>>>>>> disproving the existence of certain particular claims of specific >>>>>>>> godly existence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question >>>>>>> I asked you. Hello, anybody home? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you >>>>>>> have left. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible >>>>>>> gods!" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big >>>>>>> word means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", >>>>>>> you're just wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have >>>>>>> known what you were talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a >>>>>> polytheist. Because judging by your own scripture, your god is >>>>>> either suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in >>>>>> fact several gods. Even disregarding the theological contortions >>>>>> of trinitarianism, your Old Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, >>>>>> violent deity who likes to smite and strike down and kill people on >>>>>> a global scale for any and all infractions (when he is not busy >>>>>> "testing" the faithful in inventive and cruel ways) ... and then he >>>>>> magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of infinite love, >>>>>> forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's precious little >>>>>> "mono" about your theism, in other words.... >>>>> >>>>> And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't >>>>> you? >>>>> >>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last >>>>> two thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the >>>>> sovereignty of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>> >>>>> But that's to be expected from an unregenerate reprobate. In fact, >>>>> that's exactly what God wants you to believe about him. >>>>> >>>>> "To the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, >>>>> you appear to be perverse." >>>>> (Psalm 18:26) >>>>> >>>>> Just remember, one day he's going to "kill" you too. >>>>> >>>>> You think he's "vengeful, spiteful, violent" now, just you wait. >>>>> You ain't seen nothing yet. >>>>> >>>>> At least back in the Old Testament days, it eventually came to an >>>>> end. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> And there is a prime example of circular logic. The claimant uses a >>>> verse from a book of myths claimed without evidence to be inspired by >>>> god but written by a man. This requires a priori assumption of fact >>>> without evidence, that this person wasn't in fact just an ordinary >>>> con artist pulling the wool of the people. >>> >>> No. You have it all backwards. >>> >>> What it requires is for you to prove that the Bible is in fact a "book >>> of myths". >> >> No the authority you claim in that book is your burden, not mine. > > My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. Beliefs need no > proof. Thanks for the admission that you believe without a scrap of evidence. Pssst. Wanna but a bridge? P.T. Barnum was correct. -- 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 01:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977dko.ai9.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109968 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 2:36 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/3/2016 12:53 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >>>>>>>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>>>>>>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>>>>>>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >>>>>>> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >>>>>>> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >>>>>>> wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were >>>>>>> talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. >>>>>> Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from >>>>>> Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even >>>>>> disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old >>>>>> Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite >>>>>> and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all >>>>>> infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and >>>>>> cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of >>>>>> infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's >>>>>> precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words.... >>>>> >>>>> And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't you? >>>>> >>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>> >>>>> But that's to be expected from an unregenerate reprobate. In fact, >>>>> that's exactly what God wants you to believe about him. >>>>> >>>>> "To the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you >>>>> appear to be perverse." >>>>> (Psalm 18:26) >>>>> >>>>> Just remember, one day he's going to "kill" you too. >>>>> >>>>> You think he's "vengeful, spiteful, violent" now, just you wait. >>>>> You ain't seen nothing yet. >>>>> >>>>> At least back in the Old Testament days, it eventually came to an end. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And there is a prime example of circular logic. The claimant uses a verse >>>> from a book of myths claimed without evidence to be inspired by god but >>>> written by a man. This requires a priori assumption of fact without >>>> evidence, that this person wasn't in fact just an ordinary con artist >>>> pulling the wool of the people. >>> >>> No. You have it all backwards. >>> >>> What it requires is for you to prove that the Bible is in fact a "book >>> of myths". >> >> No the authority you claim in that book is your burden, not mine. > > My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. > Beliefs need no proof. > Assertions do. Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. 1st the burden is to proof of this god. Second prove this book is "his word". The burden of proof Is always the the responsibility of the claimant. That's you. The same sort of proof if you claimed you have a book of the Word of anyone else. > >> It is a >> book of folktales and myths, not any different than any other book until to >> provide evidence it is other than fiction. > > That's an assertion. The burden is on you to prove it's true. > > The ball is in your court. No the claim is always been stated and you iterated that claim again above. You have zero proof it is the word of God, ergo we examine and find other compatible write rings and see it is classed a folk lore and myths. >>> No one has asked you to believe it. >>> >>> No one is expecting you to accept it as fact, or even as a belief. >>> >>> Without any provocation, you assert that the Bible is a "book of myths". >>> >>> So now clearly the burden of proof rests on you to prove your assertion. >>> >>> If you cannot do so, then we have no alternative but to classify you as >>> a "liar". >>> >>> The proverbial ball is now in your court. >> >> You cited from a book, the burden is yours to prove it is anything except >> myths and folktales > > Only if I were trying to get you to believe it. > > I was only explaining why I believe it. > > See how that works? Actually what you are doing is a well known logic error. In this venue as any other venue, the burden of proof is yours. See the suck and jive doesn't work. Zero evidence exists of any gods. The claim of god or gods is classed as a ridiculous claim. The burden of proof is also the onus of the claimant. Put up or shut up as it is said. One must conclude you are either willfully ignorant or a troll. -- 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 | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbaq3o$6k6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109988 |
On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan wrote: >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >> Beliefs need no proof. >> Assertions do. > > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. No, you're wrong. It's a belief. It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to have the same belief. If I were, then I would have to show proof. But I'm not, so I don't. See how that works?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 02:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977h3t.udm.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110000 |
Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. > >> Beliefs need no proof. > >> Assertions do. > > > > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. > > No, you're wrong. It's a belief. Isn't it also a "tenant"? > > It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or > anyone else to have the same belief. > Or the same "tenant", right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 11:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <r5mjdbhha53ssfhr4cj68fvthha7tjfrft@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110008 |
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> > Robert Duncan wrote: >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >> >> Beliefs need no proof. >> >> Assertions do. >> > >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >> >> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. > >Isn't it also a "tenant"? > >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >> anyone else to have the same belief. >> > >Or the same "tenant", right? The first time you posted that I assumed it was an intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for the word "tenet"? -- 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 | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 22:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <979mk1.de1.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110044 |
Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following > appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" > <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > > >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >> > Robert Duncan wrote: > >> > >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. > >> >> Beliefs need no proof. > >> >> Assertions do. > >> > > >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. > >> > >> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. > > > > Isn't it also a "tenant"? > > > >> > >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or > >> anyone else to have the same belief. > >> > > > > Or the same "tenant", right? > > The first time you posted that I assumed it was an > intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so > sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for > the word "tenet"? Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 23:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbd5sv$167d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #110067 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: >> > >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: >> >> >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof. >> >> >> Assertions do. >> >> > >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >> >> >> >> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >> > >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"? >> > >> > >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or anyone >> >> else to have the same belief. >> >> >> >> >> > Or the same "tenant", right? >> >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an intentional joke and >> responded accordingly; now I'm not so sure. Is it possible you're >> serious, and are grasping for the word "tenet"? > > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when he > means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't > given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. You're wasting your time. Dumbcan is ineducable. -- 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 | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 23:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <979sqn.lp8.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110080 |
Smiler wrote: > On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > > > Bob Casanova wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in > >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > >> > >> > Robert Duncan wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. > >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof. > >> >> >> Assertions do. > >> >> > > >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. > >> >> > >> >> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. > >> > > >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"? > >> > > >> > > >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or > anyone >> >> else to have the same belief. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > Or the same "tenant", right? > >> > >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an intentional > joke and >> responded accordingly; now I'm not so sure. Is it > possible you're >> serious, and are grasping for the word "tenet"? > > > > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" > > when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, > > he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep > > trying. > > You're wasting your time. Dumbcan is ineducable. Yeah, I'm beginning to suspect you're right about that. I should find something else to flame him about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 13:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <dk06oiF31nU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #110067 |
On 04/03/2016 22:09, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >> >>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> >>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >>>>>> Beliefs need no proof. >>>>>> Assertions do. >>>>> >>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >>>> >>>> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >>> >>> Isn't it also a "tenant"? >>> >>>> >>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >>>> anyone else to have the same belief. >>>> >>> >>> Or the same "tenant", right? >> >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >> the word "tenet"? > > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when > he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't > given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. > With a mind as shallow as his, an ant would need stilts to sink....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 09:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbep2u$a96$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110126 |
On 3/5/2016 8:54 AM, Alex W. wrote: > On 04/03/2016 22:09, Ted&Alice Street wrote: >> Bob Casanova wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>> >>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof. >>>>>>> Assertions do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >>>>> >>>>> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >>>> >>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >>>>> anyone else to have the same belief. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Or the same "tenant", right? >>> >>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >>> the word "tenet"? >> >> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when >> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't >> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. >> > > With a mind as shallow as his, an ant would need stilts to sink.... Sad. All you are capable of doing now is resort to slinging mud. I've reduced you to using only ad hominem. ad hominem- when the message can no longer be rationally argued against, you start attacking the messenger. That's behavior expected from juvenile adolescents. That's really sad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web