XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: bruces42@hotmail.com   
      
   On 09/26/2014 11:05 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   > On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >> On 20-September-2014 6:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>> On 19/09/2014 7:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It   
   >>>>> just   
   >>>>> leaves open the question of why people believe.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to   
   >>>> believe.   
   >>>   
   >>> If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?   
   >>>   
   >>> Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,   
   >>> and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.   
   >>   
   >> but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence   
   >   
   > Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that   
   > evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;   
   > only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".   
   >   
   > BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the   
   > doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction   
   > rather than proof".   
      
   So, does the OED have anything to say about "evidence" that supports the   
   definition as being "someone believes it" or "there's a fanciful book of   
   fairy dust that says"?  Or maybe the OED is all stodgy and rational, and   
   doesn't accept wishes and dreams as evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)