XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:46:51 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:19:56 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On 06-October-2014 9:57 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>I think atheism has pickled their brains!.. :)   
   >   
   >Do you understand that mur showed us that false evidence is not evidence   
   >with his google query?   
      
       Try providing evidence that you're not lying since so far it certainly   
   seems   
   you are.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)