XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:13:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   .   
   >mur@.not. wrote in news:s0ch2ah293hbq8c5437hn8kl4l67dtg8b5@4ax.com:   
   >   
   >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:29:36 +0100, grabber  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>>On 28/09/2014 11:23, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >>>> "grabber"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >>>> news:CAEVv.595807$7b1.280829@fx01.am4...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (snip)   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger]   
   >>>>> and Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in   
   >>>>> believing in Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I believe there's a huge disagreement.   
   >>>   
   >>>I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge   
   >>>disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".   
   >>>   
   >>>Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in   
   >>>Nessie? I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does (nor   
   >>>that he doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about that, or   
   >>>indeed anything that would be a move away from his favourite activity   
   >>>of disputing the definition of "evidence".   
   >>>   
   >>>> f_u regards any and every kind of   
   >>>> hearsay as evidence:   
   >>>   
   >>>Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are   
   >>>included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in   
   >>>debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in   
   >>>which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate   
   >>>grounds for believing something, then you might actually get   
   >>>somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to   
   >>>discuss this.   
   >>   
   >>     Here's a challenge that has defeated every atheist who has been   
   >>     presented   
   >> with it so far. See if you can be the first to give a respectable   
   >> reply to it:   
   >>   
   >>     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.   
   >   
   >   
   >    Change the term "God's" to "Santa's" and you might   
   >see how silly your question is.   
      
       The fact that atheists don't have any idea how to attempt to meet the   
   challenge shows how "silly" their demand is. Not a single on of you has any   
   idea   
   at all what evidence you think should be where or why you think it should be   
   there if God exists. One thing we know for a fact to consider along with the   
   absolute clueless position of atheists, is the fact that if God does exist he   
   doesn't want to provide us with proof of his existence yet if he ever will. So   
   we see the "sillyness" is pretty much down to the level of idiocy for atheists   
   to demand evidence of God, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that they have no   
   idea what they think they're trying to talk about.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)