XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 08-July-2014 1:28 PM, BruceS wrote:   
      
   > On 07/07/2014 06:56 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>   
   >> so my saying that you WANT to believe there's no evidence is what you   
   >> have taken exception to. however your willingness to deny there is any   
   >> evidence does make it so.   
   >   
   > Not at all.  Clearly, I'm willing to consider evidence, but there just   
   > isn't any.  Your continued abject failure to provide any such evidence   
      
   there you go again.. so here we go again.. lets see.. creation, life,   
   existence, the bible (and other holy books), prayers (that may have been   
   answered), holy men- Jesus, etc.,, billions of believers, prophercies,   
   miracles, etc., etc., all fall within the definition of evidence, but   
   not proof of course, and whether the evidence is true or false.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> rubbish. I always argue my case, as I'm doing now   
   >   
   > You have not, in this thread or any other thread I've seen, presented   
   > any argument that included evidence of gods.  The most you've done is   
   > say the equivalent of "Look, there's a story about a god!  That's   
   > evidence of gods!"  That isn't arguing your case, it's just screaming   
   > nonsense.   
      
   you're wrong, but I'm not going to keep saying the same things over and   
   over just so you can contradict them   
      
   >   
   >>> Nobody is forcing you.   
   >>   
   >> you misunderstood my meaning. I was 'forced' into discussing the meaning   
   >> of the word evidence simply because atheists would not accept the   
   >> accepted definition because they desperately want to deny there's any   
   >> evidence for God. If it were not so I would not have been discussing the   
   >> meaning of the word. it was never necessary.   
   >   
   > By "accepted definition" you mean your own personal definition, that   
   > flies in the face of any commonly accepted scientific definition of   
   > "evidence"?  Your calling the fact that someone wrote down a story   
   > "evidence" that the story is true   
      
   no stupid, I'm saying things that are written as factual are evidence   
   for the event, whether it happened or not   
      
   >   
   >>  I honestly can't see why anyone wants to claim that no evidence for   
   >> God exists   
   >> other by than wanting to deny God's existence.   
   >   
   > That just means you're gullible.   
      
   rather it means (like I said that you don't want to admit) you just want   
   to believe there is no evidence and no God   
      
   >   
   >>> You claim there is evidence of gods, but present only the evidence of   
   >>> *stories* of gods, and of people believing those stories.   
   >>   
   >> no, other things as well. I guess I'll have to do another web page to   
   >> avoid endless repetition on this matter.   
   >   
   > So you'll present a web page of nonsense, like your web page of your   
   > own personal definition of "evidence",   
      
   liar. those are all direct quotes from the sources mentioned   
      
   I'm done with this. you're just going to keep saying that you don't   
   believe because there's no evidence, and I'm just going to keep saying   
   you just don't accept the evidence, so it's going nowhere. you can   
   believe what you like of course, but I think, like all atheists, you   
   just want to believe there is no God, or don't want to believe that God   
   exists, however you prefer to express it, or else you would not be atheist.   
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg   
   “People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough   
   men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)