XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:28:33 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >On 15-November-2014 8:42 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:39:53 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On 13-November-2014 8:13 AM, Chicken Runz wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> "Ralph" skrev i meddelelsen   
   >>>> news:PeqdnUTIspqeNP_JnZ2dnUVZ5gGdnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (snip)   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> It is to you. In real life....not so much.   
   >>>> In a nutshell: If somebody believes in the existence of X, then that   
   >>>> belief in itself is evidence of the existence of X, according to   
   >>>> felix_unger. The argument is that nobody would believe in anything if   
   >>>> there was no evidence. And when billions believe in various gods, then   
   >>>> that is very strong evidence. I took it one step further and claimed   
   >>>> that my belief, that gods do not exist, therefor must be evidence for   
   >>>> the non-existence of gods. Seems pretty straight foreward, don't you   
   >>>> think? But apparently I'm the stupid one, with no common sense.   
   >>>>   
   >>> actually you're the one who misrepresents what ppl say-   
   >>      Yes and by referring to him as the lying scumbag (or whatever) that he   
   is   
   >> was just pointing out one of his characteristics that he repeatedly   
   displays for   
   >> all of us who read his shit.   
   >>   
   >>> as well as being   
   >>> the one with no common sense. 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.   
   >>      There is no evidence of any atheist ever doing that. I challenge any   
   and ALL   
   >> OF THEM to try to provide evidence that any of them do, but no...   
   >>   
   >>> belief CAN be evidence, as I will try to   
   >>> explain, but 99.9% of cases belief is because of what evidence exists.   
   >>      That's a starting line they can't get as "far" as.   
   >>   
   >>> 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. 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.   
   >>      Another starting line they can't get as "far" as.   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>      Another starting line they can't get as "far" as.   
   >>   
   >>> likewise there is evidence for God (in   
   >>> general, if you like), life,   
   >>      Another starting line they can't get as "far" as.   
   >>   
   >>> the universe, is evidence along with the   
   >>> literally billions of ppl who believe in God in various ways.   
   >>      Another starting line they can't get as "far" as.   
   >   
   >these ppl are so far behind the starting line they can't even see the   
   >race, lol! :)   
      
       LOL...   
      
   >>> that is   
   >>> all just plain common sense. but you got one thing right. In my view the   
   >>> fact that atheists exist is also evidence for the non-existence of God,   
   >>      May be, but their mental restrictions and blatant lies are much   
   stronger   
   >> evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan's influence on human   
   >> minds.   
   >   
   >I agree that their behaviour is described in biblical texts   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> by using the same rationale, the presumption that there must be reasons   
   >>> to believe that. although mur would not agree with this view I think,   
   >>> and he might like to explain why.   
   >>      They can't provide any reasons to put faith in that possibility being   
   the   
   >> correct one.   
   >   
   >I don't see the sense in believing in only one possibility when there   
   >may be others   
      
       Nor can I. But they like to think of their faith as "knowledge". The first   
   time I saw one of them make that suggestion years ago I thought he must be   
   especially stupid even for an atheist since there's no way anyone could "know"   
   God doesn't exist. As time went on though they taught me that the majority of   
   them believe they found out somehow. Even if they happen to be correct there's   
   no way they could know it. They just happened to get lucky, guess correctly,   
   and   
   put their faith in the correct possibility.   
      
   >>   They have no evidence at all that there's no God associated with   
   >> Earth. And though they've proven that they think there should be some sort   
   of   
   >> proof they like to refer to as "verifiable evidence" that God exists if   
   there is   
   >> one associated with Earth, not a single one of them has the slightest idea   
   what   
   >> it should be, where it should be, or why it should be provided.   
   >>   
   >>> other evidence for the non-existence   
   >>> of God would be unanswered prayers, if it is claimed that God ALWAYS   
   >>> answers prayer,   
   >>      That's no evidence that God doesn't exist. It's evidence that   
   sometimes the   
   >> answer is no. Unless parents refusing a child's request is evidence that   
   they   
   >> don't exist. But I hope you're not being dragged down into the hilarious   
   type   
   >> position we've laughed at these atheists for being in.   
   >   
   >yes, 'no' is an answer. but there's no way to distinguish between a 'no'   
   >answer, and no answer   
      
       True. That all gets down to the basic fact that if there is a God   
   associated   
   with Earth, he apparently doesn't want to provide us with proof of his   
   existence. What if he did? He already has billions of people yammering at him   
   24/7 from all over the planet, asking him for things. What if he did somehow   
   make it popular knowledge that he does exist and does hear all the things   
   people   
   are constantly begging him for, and is aware of all the suffering etc... It's   
   certainly not unreasonable to think he might not want it to be worse than it is   
   now, in addition to the fact that it would make us more like his slaves than   
   having the freedom we do have. Also, HOW would he make himself known etc, and   
   what sort of relationship would he have with people? That's the challenge that   
   has been defeating these atheists for months now. They don't have any clue at   
   all how they think things "should be" if God exists, and the "best" they can do   
   when confronted about it is to try to shift the burden of how THEY think things   
   should be onto other people and insist we should tell them...LOL... Here again   
   just describing their position is hilarious.   
      
   >>> and scientific discoveries that contradict religious teaching.   
   >>      Not really. Some would need explanations as to how they work together,   
   but   
   >> the concepts of evolution and creation are certainly not contradictions.   
   Quite   
   >> the opposite in fact.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)