XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 16-November-2014 12:21 AM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   > "felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen   
   > news:ccns2oF1jdgU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>   
   >> On 15-November-2014 9:16 AM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > "felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen   
   >> > news:ccme2nFkap4U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > (snip)   
   >   
   >> > And the Bible is evidence of God how exactly?   
   >>   
   >> because of what it contains. duh!   
   >   
   > And what it contains is words. Are you saying words are evidence? I   
   > got one   
   > of them for you: Hogwart   
   >   
   >>   
   >> > Because all the Christians believe so? (Please, please, please say   
   >> > 'yes'.)   
   >   
   > The words are evidence because many people believe they are true? Explain   
   > how words in a book can be regarded as evidence of the existence of   
   > what the   
   > words describe.   
   >   
   >> >   
   >> >> 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!??   
   >   
   > Is a drawing of a Dog Head evidence of the existence of Dog Heads? Of   
   > course   
   > not. Then what is? Eventually you'll have to admit that there is no valid   
   > evidence for their existence, and the only conclusion you can draw (if   
   > you're honest that is) is that there isn't any of gods either.   
   >   
   > (snip)   
   >   
   >> >   
   >> > 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   
   >   
   > This is more revealing of your mental capacity then you realize, I'm   
   > afraid.   
   > If something doesn't prove anything then it cannot be regarded as   
   > evidence.   
   > Why is this so difficult for you to accept? (Hint: we both know why...   
   > God   
   > is circling the drain!)   
   >   
   >   
   >> > 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   
   >   
   > I never said it did. That was your strawman from the beginning.   
   >   
   >   
   >> > They fall on their own.   
   >>   
   >> in your dreams   
   >   
   > Well, let's see. Look out for the (*)'s.   
   >   
   >   
   >> > '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   
   >   
   > But the story of the blind Madame is evidence of God even if it never   
   > happened? The mere fact that somebody told the story, and that millions   
   > believe it makes it bona fida evidence? Explain how a tale of   
   > something that   
   > never happened in real life becomes evidence of that non-happening?   
   >   
   > (snip)   
   >   
   >> > You don't even try to defend your own arguments with anything   
   >> > substantial.   
   >>   
   >> I argue in principle. you seem incapable of understanding this   
   >   
   > I know you do, and that's what I'm attacking. You claim there is   
   > evidence,   
   > yet you fail to bring one (1) single specific and documented example and   
   > stick around for the result of the analysis. You'll say that what   
   > turns out   
   > to be a frisbee on the string is still evidence of UFO's.   
   >   
   >   
   >> the reports of miracles are evidence for miracles, whether a miracle   
   >> happened or not. ...   
   >   
   > (*) This is where you're utterly wrong, and I believe you know it's   
   > wrong. I   
   > mean, you can read and write, and you appear to have all the normal   
   > mental   
   > faculties intact. If the miracle didn't happen, then it's not a   
   > miracle and   
   > the reports of the 'miracle' that didn't really happen, are not evidence   
   > that the miracle actually happened. Only if the miracle happened it   
   > becomes   
   > evidence of God, which is what you say it is.   
   >   
   >   
   >> ... 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   
   >   
   > Is an image of a hubcap thrown in the air evidence of alien UFO's because   
   > somebody reported it as such? Of course not. Why do you insist that it   
   > is?   
   >   
   >   
   >> >> ... 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   
   >> sum   
   >> total of the reports, sightings, photos, etc., of UFO's is evidence for   
   >> the existence of UFO's. ...   
   >   
   > (*) 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=evidence? Grainy blobs, hubcaps, frisbees and   
   > weather   
   > balloons are all evidence of alien UFO's? Right... Everything that has   
   > ever   
   > been presented as evidence for alien UFO's has either been 100%   
   > debunked, or   
   > has been so feeble and grainy that it couldn't be shown to be   
   > anything. Yet,   
   > you insist that it is evidence of extra terrestial lifeforms visiting   
   > Earth.   
   >   
   >> ... whether any one of them proves the existence of UFO's or not is   
   >> immaterial to this simple fact.   
   >   
   > Another (*) 'My dad dresses up as Santa. I know it's Dad, but I regard   
   > it as   
   > evidence that Santa is real none the less.' Oh yes, that is your line of   
   > reasoning.   
   >   
   > (snip)   
   >   
   >> > And don't drag NASA and search for extra terrestial life into this.   
   >> > We're talking abductee level nutjobs et al. If, hopefully when,   
   >> NASA and   
   >> > ESA present evidence we know it will be more than yet another burnt   
   >> blob   
   >> > in a glass of holy water.   
   >>   
   >> no, we are talking about what is evidence!   
   >   
   > And according to you images of frisbees and hubcaps must be regarded as   
   > evidence, eventhough we know what they are. The blob is evidence   
   > eventhough   
   > it proves absolutely nothing at all. Words in a book become evidence   
   > of what   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)