XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 07-November-2014 5:47 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:50:57 +1100, Sylvia Else    
   > wrote:   
   > ..   
   >> On 4/11/2014 9:39 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>> On 04-November-2014 7:53 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 4/11/2014 4:54 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>> On 02-November-2014 11:32 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 1/11/2014 7:05 AM, The.W@tcher wrote:   
   >>>>>>> For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's   
   >>>>>>> existence,   
   >>>>>>> when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented   
   >>>>>>> with evidence   
   >>>>>>> of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is   
   >>>>>>> evidence,   
   >>>>>> Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been   
   >>>>>> presented?   
   >>>>> I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?   
   >>>> Yes, I've heard of him. He appears to have been someone who lived   
   >>>> about two thousand years ago, and was killed by the Romans. Some   
   >>>> decades afterwards, some stuff was written about him, and in those   
   >>>> writings, some improbable events are described.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As evidence of God, it's a bit thin,   
   >>> but it is evidence nevertheless. just as all that is written about him   
   >>> is, and the testimony of believers, and the reported miracles, etc.,   
   >>> it's ALL evidence   
   >> My claim herein to be worth $Three billion is evidence of my huge   
   >> wealth. But it's not very good evidence. Indeed, its value is as near to   
   >> zero as it gets. In everyday language, people would be justified in   
   >> saying that it's not evidence at all.   
   >>   
   >> So, if you want, we can split hairs on exactly what is meant by   
   >> "evidence", but for practical purposes, the writings, testimony of   
   >> believers, and reported miracles, are of so little evidentiary value as   
   >> not to count as evidence at all.   
   >      That's a lie.   
      
   It certainly is. but it's what they want to believe   
      
   >   
   >>>> particularly when we take into account that the world has always been   
   >>>> full of people deceiving others for their own ends, making up stories,   
   >>>> and generally have poor memories.   
   >>> that relates to the value or worth of the evidence which is a different   
   >>> matter to the existence of the evidence itself   
   >>>   
   >>>> Used cars get sold with better documentation than that.   
   >>> they didn't have cars in those days   
   >> If they had had, they'd have got better documentation with them.   
   >      No one including you can imagine what sort of "evidence" you think there   
   > "should be" if there is a God associated with Earth. That's because there's   
   no   
   > reason there should be any of the sort of proof you demand. Possibly in a   
   > subconscious part of your tiny mind you're aware of the truth that I keep   
   > clearly pointing out for you or you wouldn't be ashamed to refer to the proof   
   > you demand as proof. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be any reason why you   
   > should be ashamed of it and you'd just refer to it as proof, and you also   
   > wouldn't be ashamed of the distinction between evidence which we have and the   
   > proof which we do not. But as I pointed out you ARE ashamed....LOL....and   
   are no   
   > doubt ashamed of your shame...LOL...   
      
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
   Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com   
   http://pamelageller.com/   
   “The right to free speech includes the right to offend"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)