XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: bruces42@hotmail.com   
      
   On 07/07/2014 10:35 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Each of those can certainly be seen as evidence, but not evidence of   
   gods.  If by "creation" you mean the act of some agent creating the   
   universe, then you're begging the question on that one.  If not, then   
   various acts of creation (such as my creating this comment) are evidence   
   of a creator (in this case me).  Existence only implies a creator if you   
   assume the creator from the beginning---a circular argument that leaves   
   the question of who or what created the creator.  Things like the   
   various (and contradictory) "holy" books, prophecies, "miracles", and   
   other stories stand as evidence that there are stories, and authors of   
   those stories, not that the stories are true.  Your logic would have us   
   believing there's evidence for the reality of Hogwarts.   
      
   >>> 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   
      
   You have yet to provide any evidence of gods, you just keep repeating   
   the "someone wrote a story so that's evidence the story is true" mantra.   
     You have no understanding of evidence, and seem to think actual   
   objective evidence is "proof" and vague mumbling and wild stories count   
   as evidence of the stories' truth.   
      
   >>>> 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   
      
   You call me stupid while proudly exhibiting your foolishness,   
   gullibility, ignorance, and mental deficiency?  OK.  That says a lot   
   more about you than it does about me.  We're back to you claiming   
   there's evidence for things like Treasure Island being true, and me   
   saying it's just a story.   
      
   >>>  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   
      
   No.  You again misrepresent, and since I've reminded you of the truth so   
   recently, you're clearly lying.  I don't know why you're so dishonest,   
   but you're making it clear to everyone reading this thread that you are   
   a deliberate liar.  I hope your particular religion doesn't have any   
   rules against deliberate lies.   
      
   >>>> 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   
      
   That's something like a cast-iron pot calling the polished stainless   
   steel kettle "black".   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   No again.  Are you really that dense, or is it just some mental illness   
   that keeps you from accepting the truth?  I say I don't believe because   
   I haven't *seen* any evidence of gods, I don't claim there *isn't* any.   
     I'm not refusing to accept actual evidence, I'm refusing to accept   
   non-evidence as evidence just because you don't understand what evidence   
   is.  I don't *want* to believe there aren't gods, I simply don't believe   
   there are gods.  It has nothing to do with my wants, fears, etc.  You   
   utterly fail to present actual evidence for any gods,  I don't accept   
   your claim that fairy tales count as evidence for their own truth.  The   
   bigotry you expose with your grouping of all atheists, and assigning the   
   whole group motives that you only guess at, is no credit to your   
   religion.  And of course, we all know your religion is Christian   
   hypocrite, or you wouldn't keep harping on the Christian mythos.  Your   
   refusal to even declare it should shame you deeply, considering that   
   whole bit with Peter.  Of course, deep down you know it's all nonsense,   
   so maybe that explains why you won't admit your faith, and instead   
   implicitly deny Jesus far more than three times.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)