XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 06-October-2014 9:45 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   and they think they're smart ppl, LOL! and a lot of this can be put down   
   simply to dishonesty of course.   
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
   Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com   
   http://pamelageller.com/   
   “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” -   
   Barack Hussein Obama   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)