XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 16-September-2014 2:07 PM, Olrik wrote:   
   > 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».   
      
   no, just the normal one..   
      
   http://ausnet.info/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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)