XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:33:27 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 03-October-2014 8:27 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   ...   
   >>      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???   
   >   
   >surprising isn't it how they don't seem to be able to appreciate the   
   >basics such as evidence does not have to be proof, or even something   
   >that leads to proof, evidence can be false evidence, evidence can be   
   >weak or strong evidence, etc., etc., all because they want to deny there   
   >is ANY evidence for God simply to bolster their 'no gods' position.   
      
   No, false claims (or as you confusingly say 'false evidence') are not   
   evidence. You have made it clear that you know that you have no evidence   
   that supports the claim that some god or other exists, yet you insist   
   that there must be evidence for the existence of gods.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)