XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:28:50 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 29-September-2014 4:29 AM, 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 would need to examine the evidence. :)  ..which according to some ppl   
   >doesn't exist of course   
   >   
   >> 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".   
   >   
   >I don't dispute the definition of evidence, moron. that is your lie. I   
   >simply use the definitions in common use. the problem lies with those   
   >who want to claim that what is evidence is not evidence, or else apply   
   >only a restrictive definition to the exclusion of all others. the value   
   >or merit of any evidence is another matter.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be   
   >agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we   
   >first agree about 'A' .   
      
       They lie that there is no evidence at all to the extent of denying that   
   there's any false evidence. And they have no idea at all what evidence they   
   think should be where much less why they think it should be wherever, if God   
   does exist. So what COULD they discuss???   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)