XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:ccme2nFkap4U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > On 14-November-2014 10:45 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >   
   > > "felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen   
   > > news:ccm0piFgsiqU1@mid.individual.net...   
   > >   
   > > (snip)   
   >   
   > you see, the trouble in trying to talk sense to atheists, is that they   
   > have no sense. just stuck in their mindset rut, not able to see the forest   
   > for the trees.   
   >   
   > >   
   > >>   
   > >> I've concluded, following recent exchanges, that this guy is dishonest.   
   > >   
   > > There is nothing dishonest about saying that a story about a crippled   
   > > hand being healed in 1858 doesn't cut it as evidence. There is nothing   
   > > dishonest about saying that a 67 pixels out of focus grainy blob in   
   > > photo is not evidence for anything, let alone alien spaceships. It's not   
   > > dishonest to laugh at people who believe that medieval tales of Dog   
   > > Heads is evidence of the existence of DH's.   
   > >   
   > > The dishonesty becomes apparent when you, who claim that everythining I   
   > > just mentioned is indeed evidence,   
   >   
   > I've told you over and over again what my position is. not my fault if you   
   > can't/won't accept it. I posted this just yesterday, 13/11/14, which you   
   > completely ignored:   
   >   
   > ".. if you had any common sense, you would use it. firstly, we have to   
   > consider ALL factors about anything to decide what the situation actually   
   > is. belief CAN be evidence, as I will try to explain, but in 99.9% of   
   > cases belief is because of what evidence exists. In the case of   
   > Christianity, the religion we are most familiar with in the West, apart   
   > from Judaism, the beliefs are based on the bible and it's teaching, and   
   > specifically the teachings of Jesus, and what is written about Jesus.   
      
   And the Bible is evidence of God how exactly? Because all the Christians   
   believe so? (Please, please, please say 'yes'.)   
      
      
   > but we could then go on to say that the billions of christians are also   
   > evidence, because if you (a person) had not heard of the bible, or   
   > anything about Christianity, the fact that so many ppl believed something   
   > would be evidence that there is something to believe in. ...   
      
   And the Dog Heads?   
      
      
   > ... and when you take everything about Christianity into consideration..   
   > ie. the bible, the testimony of religious experiences, reports of   
   > miracles, various texts and books, etc., that is all evidence for the   
   > existence of the Christian God. ...   
      
   I know exactly what you consider evidence, and you have been given every   
   possibility to know why I don't accept your evidence as evidence. What I   
   miss is your response to my critique.   
      
      
   > ... likewise there is evidence for God (in general, if you like), life,   
   > the universe, is evidence along with the literally billions of ppl who   
   > believe in God in various ways. it's all just plain common sense. ..."   
      
   I have spent thousands of words to attack the validity and merits of your   
   'evidence' and I do it again further down. I have some interesting   
   challenges for you as well!   
      
      
      
   > > refuse to say whether you actually believe your own words or not.   
   >   
   > and I've told you twice at least that what I believe, and the use of a   
   > pseudonym, is immaterial to the validity of my arguments or any points I   
   > make. and what did you do? you just snipped and ran.   
      
   I explained, revised if you like, my position on the use of nyms. Go ahead,   
   call yourself whatever you want, but don't make it look like I used your   
   usage of a nym as a reason to disquallify your arguments. They fall on their   
   own. 'The old Madame was blind, now she can see. Millions believe her!'   
   Documented miracles, my arse!   
      
   >   
   > >   
   > >> when confronted with solid irrefutable argument or fact he just snips   
   > >> and runs away. ...   
   > >   
   > > Do you believe that water from a well in France can heal people?   
   > > Do you believe in miracles in general?   
   > > Do you believe a grainy blob or a shaky video from 1954 is evidence of   
   > > alien UFO's visting Earth?   
   > > Do you believe that once Dog Heads lived in southern India?   
   > > Do you believe that gods exist?   
   >   
   > see above.   
      
   I looked again and still didn't see an answer to any of my questions.   
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > > You drag a tail of unanswered questions behind you that'd make Halley's   
   > > Comet proud. But if you dare to answer those questions, and the ones to   
   > > come, I'll consider picking up the debate again.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >> ... he doesn't have the decency to admit it when something that is said   
   > >> it true. ...   
   > >   
   > > What truths?   
   >   
   > like the fact that whether I disclose in a public forum what I personally   
   > believe is irrelevant to the veracity of my arguments. ...   
      
   You don't even try to defend your own arguments with anything substantial.   
      
   A good place to start: Give me one (1) specific example of what you consider   
   a 'documented miracle', and, most importantly, show me the evidence that   
   supports the claim that the incident a) really happened, and b) was indeed a   
   miracle.   
      
   I know you say that you don't need to do that, but until you or somebody   
   else provides the actual evidence, I intend to reject references to it as   
   hearsay, and we'd be back where we started. Back where atheists can rightly   
   claim that there is no evidence of the existence of gods.   
      
      
   > ... like the fact that you're too stupid to even suspect that a person   
   > might have good reason(s) for not wanting to disclose their identity or   
   > beliefs. like the fact that ppl may have good reasons to believe as they   
   > do. like that fact that just because you don't accept as evidence what is   
   > clearly evidence doesn't mean that it isn't. there is evidence for UFO's,   
   > ...   
      
   Show me a picture or video that you regard as evidence of alien UFO's and be   
   prepared to defend it.   
      
   > Nessie, ...   
      
   Ditto.   
      
      
   > ... and God. ...   
      
   Millions believe in gods. Millions believed in Dog Heads. Do you believe   
   that it is even remotely conceivable that Dog Heads really existed? Come on,   
   what could you possible lose by giving us an honest answer to that silly   
   questions. Why the scared look on your face? Have a little faith! (Hint: we   
   both know, that if you do answer honestly, you'd have to accept that the   
   notion of the possible existence of gods would be equally silly.)   
      
      
   > ... what do you suppose the Air force and NASA investigate if not the   
   > evidence for UFO's and alien life forms to determine if they exist or not?   
   > ...   
      
   'Hell, it could be Russians or some of them Gooks.' The point is, that they   
   (almost) always determine that it wasn't an alien UFO and when they do that,   
   the blobs/strange lights/crop circles/funny sounds cannot be considered   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)