XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 07-November-2014 5:48 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 07:04:14 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   > ..   
   >> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:28:38 +1100, the following appeared   
   >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>   
   >>> On 04-November-2014 10:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 4/11/2014 9:58 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have   
   >>>>> good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of   
   >>>>> God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.   
   >>>> That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence   
   >>>> of the correctness of their belief.   
   >>> belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.   
   >> As both you and I have noted, your definition of evidence   
   >> isn't what is meant by evidence to someone who's interested   
   >> in whether that evidence has a basis in fact. And as has   
   >> also been noted, the evidence for the existence of Santa is   
   >> of exactly the same quality as the evidence for the   
   >> existence of deities. *Any* deities.   
   >      The evidence for Santa is that gifts saying from Santa appear in the   
   house,   
   > and people how are trusted explain that Santa brought them. Weeks or months   
   > before they appear people are told by other people they trust that Santa will   
   > come and bring them, then they appear. Other people also explain the same   
   thing   
   > and have the same experience of gifts being left, with ALL EVIDENCE saying it   
   > was Santa who left them. Other people know better than those they lie to but   
   > still ALL EVIDENCE points to Santa's existence. I don't believe any of you   
   are   
   > honestly so extremely stupid you're not aware of that, but if you truly are   
   then   
   > this entire topic is just so far over your head that you'll never be more   
   than   
   > an idiot in regards to it. Even if you're not too stupid to understand what I   
   > pointed out for you but you're dishonestly pretending to be this topic might   
   > still be beyond you.   
   >   
   >      Even though none of you can comprehend the distinctions I'm about to   
   point   
   > out for you, they still very much do exist and are very significant. People   
   who   
   > learn the truth about the evidence for Santa learn about the lie, and in fact   
   > delibarately promote and support the lie. In HUGE contrast to that   
   situation, NO   
   > ONE knows God does not exist. NO ONE know there is no God associated with   
   Earth.   
   > None of you atheists have any way of finding out if there is not. All you   
   have   
   > is faith in your own chosen belief being correct and belief without   
   > corroborating objective evidence is evidence of only belief.   
      
   you explain it very well, and besides, the 'evidence' for God can be   
   investigated by "someone who's interested   
   in whether that evidence has a basis in fact" to determine if it has, so   
   he is wrong about that too   
      
   >> As Sylvia noted, and has been noted many times in the past,   
   >> belief without corroborating objective evidence is evidence   
   >> of only belief.   
      
      
   --   
   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)