XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 09-July-2014 2:49 AM, BruceS wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   you're just guessing.  you know nothing about me in reality. but you can   
   rest assured that I do not bring disrepute to any religion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)