XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:33:27 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 03-October-2014 8:27 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> 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???   
   >   
   >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.   
      
       Yes it was a surprise and sometimes I'm still surprised at how stupid they   
   are, or at least claim to be. I tend to overestimate people and don't want to   
   believe they're as stupid as they are, or claim to be, and if years ago before   
   I   
   encountered atheists in these ngs I would have disbelieved they claim to be so   
   stupid if someone had just told me about it. I would have suspected that the   
   person didn't understand their position correctly. But in dealing with them   
   directly they teach us that yes they do claim there's no evidence, yes they do   
   claim to have no belief even after they've shown that they have one, yes some   
   of   
   them do try to deny that there are more than one type of atheism, yes many of   
   them do try to deny that there is more than one type of agnosticism, yes some   
   of   
   them do claim to know God doesn't exist, yes some of them even claim to have   
   proof that God doesn't exist, no none of them can appreciate that if God exists   
   people have varying beliefs about him and refer to him in a variety of   
   different   
   ways, and no none of them can appreciate the fact that if God does exist he's   
   not going to provide us with proof of his existence yet, if ever.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)