XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 15-November-2014 9:16 AM, Malte Runz wrote:   
      
   > "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 of what it contains. duh!   
      
   > 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?   
      
   whatever evidence exists for dog heads is evidence for dog heads. duh!   
   how hard can this be!??   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> ... 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.   
      
   and I have told you that I'm simply saying that evidence exists, not   
   that it proves anything   
      
   > 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.   
      
   you never conceded that what I said is correct; that a nym has no   
   bearing on the validity of what is said   
      
   > They fall on their own.   
      
   in your dreams   
      
   > 'The old Madame was blind, now she can see. Millions believe her!'   
   > Documented miracles, my arse!   
      
   I am not the least bit interested in your 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.   
      
   I argue in principle. you seem incapable of understanding this   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   the reports of miracles are evidence for miracles, whether a miracle   
   happened or not. just like reports of UFO's are evidence for UFO's. I   
   can't make it any simpler. If you can't understand such basic things   
   then there is no point in trying to discuss with you   
      
   >> ... 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.   
      
   this is hopeless!. how many times do I need to explain it to you? the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)