XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:52:25 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
       There are a number of starting lines they can't get as "far" as, the main   
   one of course being the fact that there might be a God associated with Earth.   
   Another is that there is evidence that he does exist or billions of people   
   would   
   have no reason to believe he might, much less faith that he does. So they can't   
   be very smart in regards to the topic of God's possible existence. In fact not   
   only are they not very smart in regards to that topic, but they are necessarily   
   retarded in regards to that topic.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)