XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: olrik666@yahoo.com   
      
   Le 2014-09-15 23:04, felix_unger a écrit :   
   > On 15-September-2014 7:54 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 14/09/2014 1:57 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:14:54 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >>> .   
   >>>> Le 2014-09-10 14:47, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>> Would they be able to post at all?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What lies?   
   >>>   
   >>> All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's   
   >>> existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be   
   >>> nothing for   
   >>> anyone to believe in.   
   >>   
   >> The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence   
   >> of evidence.   
   >   
   > no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the   
   > absence of proof.   
      
   You must have a very special definition of «evidence».   
      
   >>   
   >> As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It   
   >> just leaves open the question of why people believe.   
   >>   
   >> Sylvia.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Olrik   
   aa #1981   
   EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)