XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "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   
   they describe. I might have to reconsider my observation of your intact   
   mental faculties.   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > > Why should I accept your blobs as evidence if you don't even accept it   
   > > yourself?   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)