DETAILS OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Is Gravitational Force Dependent on a Falling Object's Speed?
Next: Roberts: Explain to Gisse what a Metric is!!
From: Uncle Vic on 12 Dec 2009 21:38 One fine day in alt.atheism, George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote: > [Hammond] > The first thing I wish to determine is where you're > posting from. I posted my message to: > > Newsgroups: > sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.philosophy,rec.org.mensa,alt.rel > igion.christian LIAR! Here's the list, copy/pasted from the OP. Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,alt.sci.proof-of- god,alt.atheism,alt.religion.kibology -- Uncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on your face when you push them down the stairs.
From: Alan Ford on 12 Dec 2009 22:51 George Hammond wrote: > X-No-Archive: Yes <SNIP HECKLER -- If you don't beat your meat You can't have any pudding How can you have any pudding If you don't beat your meat?
From: Jared on 12 Dec 2009 23:32 On Dec 12, 5:05 am, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 12:55 am, Jared <jared4...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 4:35 am, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > You are incorrect about this. The causality is genetic and > > > the seperate reality is merely an interpretation of and > > > further creation of a sensory experience which > > > links the practical to the hypothetical to the nonsensical. > > > Identical twins are not 100% concordant for schizophrenia; that is, if > > one has it, the other may not. So it is not correct to say "the > > causality is genetic". > > Identical twins are not identical. So what's your point? In what relevant sense are they not identical? The operative word here is _genetic_.
From: Jared on 12 Dec 2009 23:37 On Dec 11, 12:40 pm, Doctroid <doctr...(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > In article <n705i5pafgcbk8gro29089a9bvvk9i3...(a)4ax.com>, > Glenn Knickerbocker <N...(a)bestweb.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:59:39 -0800, George Hammond wrote: > > > Secondly, Mark is the second most common name in the > > >English language after John, which is why two of the four > > >Gospels are named Mark and John. > > > Well, nobody can accuse George of a "post hoc ergo propter > >hoc" fallacy. Pre hoc fallacy?
From: Mark on 13 Dec 2009 06:39
On Dec 12, 11:05 am, "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ou...(a)welho.com> wrote: > ***** Th-Eo-Th-Ers ***** > > A systematically one way or an other > As the define as the definite matter > Details of a life after death is a crucial > > Especially as does a definitely > First of all along the westerners > Got a name which is the eugenics > > As which is a crucial for a money as matter > As a primordial matter along the others > As for the army along the industrial > > Pharmacology covered as a goal > Along an economical pattern of a matter > A just as a definitely an among the others > > -- > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect > Best Regards! > tiger > ( if you can't read this post, type the letters you > see in the box below) snap snap snap --- Mark |