XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:24:40 +0100, grabber  wrote:   
      
   >On 16/09/2014 08:52, felix_unger wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   >There are lots of different meanings there: which are you using today?   
   >Why do you find it so hard to understand that someone else might be   
   >using one of the others?   
      
       Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you   
   think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him   
   to provide us with it if he exists.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)