XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 19:14:52 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >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   
      
       Yes, these people show themselves to be pretty well clueless in all   
   directions.   
      
   >>> As Sylvia noted, and has been noted many times in the past,   
   >>> belief without corroborating objective evidence is evidence   
   >>> of only belief.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)