XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:42:32 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 03-October-2014 8:26 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:28:14 +0100, grabber  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On 29/09/2014 02:28, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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' .   
   >>> Wrong. You don't have to use the word evidence at all.   
   >>>   
   >>> Allow me to translate:   
   >>>   
   >>> I think when Malte says   
   >>>   
   >>> "there is no evidence for god, or Nessie, or Dogheads"   
   >>>   
   >>> he probably means something like   
   >>>   
   >>> "there is no verifiable material that gives adequate grounds for belief   
   >>> in god, or Nessie, or Dogheads"   
   >>>   
   >>> I am sure that Malte could adjust this wording if it's not quite right.   
   >>      If God does exist at least some of the evidence of his existence is   
   false   
      
   Why? Is your god intentionally misleading people? What sort of god is   
   that?   
      
   >> evidence. If God does not exist then ALL evidence is false evidence. By   
   claiming   
      
   But there is no evidence. You know that.   
      
   >> there's no evidence the moron is saying that there's no false evidence, even   
   >> though every bit of it might be false and it's pretty much certain that   
   there's   
   >> some false evidence. So that narrow, shallow and from my pov horribly   
   dishonest   
   >> position could not be much more incorrect.   
   >   
   >well said!   
      
   Not remotely. You know that there is no evidence that any gods exist.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)