XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 09:37:35 -0500, 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.   
      
   http://is.gd/K1Bmu4   
      
   You moron.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)