XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:41:52 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 05-October-2014 12:37 AM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Is there evidence for..   
   >   
   >(a) the Loch Ness Monster   
      
   No.   
      
   >(b) UFO's   
      
   No.   
      
   >(c) Bigfoot/Yeti   
      
   No.   
      
   >please answer 'yes' or 'no' only to each   
      
   So you don't want informed answers, you want to show us how silly you   
   can be, by demanding yes or no.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)