XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 19-September-2014 3:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:13:37 +1000, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >> On 18-September-2014 3:28 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>> I'd also point out that I don't care what he has to say, as   
   >>> long as he doesn't insist *in a sci group* that it's   
   >>> supported by evidence. But he doesn't like me pointing out   
   >>> that, in science, it's *not* supported by evidence.   
   >> wrong! as I have REPEATEDLY told you now.. my problem with you is that   
   >> you wont accept that the broad definition of evidence applies in regards   
   >> to religious beliefs, as it applies to anything in fact. you may demand   
   >> as much scientific evidence as you like, it wont change anything   
   > I'm well aware that it won't change anything. I'm also well   
   > aware that no objective evidence supports the contention   
   > that any deities exist,   
      
   how do you know? what about unexplained miracles?   
      
   >   and that by the nature of the   
   > subjective evidence which has been presented there is no   
   > reason to dismiss the existence of *any* deity based on   
   > other such subjective evidence. And that's the point I've   
   > continued to try to make: If the evidence supports the   
   > existence of the Christian God, it equally supports the   
   > existence of Brahma.   
      
   actually the evidence for the Christian God supports belief in the   
   christian God. the evidence for Brahma supports belief in Brahma   
      
   >   Or any other deity, including those   
   > accepted by Wicca. Or ghosts. Or fairies and leprechauns.   
      
   evidence has to be first accepted, and then evaluated on it's merit, and   
   we use common sense and all available knowledge to do so. the atheist   
   claim that there is no evidence for God is just plain silly. the value   
   of the evidence however is another matter. If we think of evidence as   
   meaning a cause for belief (which it is) as well as something which   
   establishes some fact (which it also is) we can better understand the   
   situation. traveling across the nullabor plain one is presented with   
   ample evidence that the earth is flat, but go up in a hot air balloon   
   and see the curvature of the earth, and you have evidence that it's not.   
   so which is right? maybe the curvature witnessed is an optical illusion?   
   however, we now know the truth of the matter of course.   
      
   > Once belief and testimony are accepted as evidence there are   
   > *no* limits, including limits based on physics; after all,   
   > such limits do not account for the supernatural.   
      
   yes there are no limits regarding belief, and testimony is a cause for   
   belief, but truth is another matter, and that depends on establishing   
   fact. we can believe what the bible says about Jesus or not, but whether   
   or not what is claimed actually happened relies on proving the claims to   
   be true.   
      
   >   
   >>> Anyway, thanks for the support, which I'm reasonably sure   
   >>> he'll fail to understand, and will dismiss as merely   
   >>> self-serving rhetoric.   
   >> talk about the pot calling the kettle black..   
   > Yeah, right. Address the comments I made above; no one else   
   > has been willing to do so (other than by dismissing them out   
   > of hand as "ridiculous").   
      
   I'm here to discuss the issues, as always   
      
   --   
   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)