XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: markp@NOSPAMmail.com   
      
   On 10/9/2014 12:15 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:   
   > In article , mur.@.not.   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:07:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> mur.@.not. wrote in news:2ei33alp8qch87dt4f98oh9fh5jf9qkm4m@4ax.com:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:23:32 -0500, Mitchell Holman    
   >>>> wrote: .   
   >>>>> mur@.not. wrote in news:79kr2adbktl5d8aj73gk42h5d3b2lkeasb@4ax.com:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:13:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman   
   >>>>>>  wrote: .   
   >>>>>>> mur@.not. wrote in news:s0ch2ah293hbq8c5437hn8kl4l67dtg8b5@4ax.com:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:29:36 +0100, 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 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".   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>      Here's a challenge that has defeated every atheist who has   
   >>>>>>>>      been presented   
   >>>>>>>> with it so far. See if you can be the first to give a respectable   
   >>>>>>>> reply to it:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>      Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should   
   >>>>>>>>      be", WHERE you   
   >>>>>>>> think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's   
   >>>>>>>> benefit for him to provide us with it if he exists.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>     Change the term "God's" to "Santa's" and you might   
   >>>>>>> see how silly your question is.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>      The fact that atheists don't have any idea how to attempt to   
   >>>>>>      meet the   
   >>>>>> challenge shows how "silly" their demand is.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>       What "challenge"?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      The one that defeats every one of you, including you, to the point   
   >>>>      that not   
   >>>> one of you is able to even attempt to explain WHAT sort of evidence   
   >>>> you think there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY   
   >>>> you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with   
   >>>> it if he exists. No one has given a respectable answer anyway.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>     Change the word "god" to "Santa" in the   
   >>> above and you will see how silly your position   
   >>> really is.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Some   
   >>>> have suggested that God should grant every request anyone makes to   
   >>>> him, which is childlike and worthy of no respect at all. Some have   
   >>>> suggested that he should re-grow the limbs of amputees which is in no   
   >>>> way superior to saying he should grant every other request as well.   
   >>>> One person amusingly suggested he should make a "video tape", and also   
   >>>> that he should leave his "footprints in the snow". Both of those are   
   >>>> so absurd maybe even some atheists could figure out why. So the   
   >>>> "challenge" STILL defeats every one of you to try to explain what you   
   >>>> think you think you're trying to talk about, which is disappointing   
   >>>> because I'm very curious what the explanation could possibly be. BUT!   
   >>>> We have been clearly shown that there is no explanation, and not one   
   >>>> of you has any idea what evidence you think should be where, or why   
   >>>> it should be there.   
   >>>   
   >>>      Your speculation that a deity exists remains   
   >>> just a speculation.   
   >>   
   >>      And yours that there is none is in no better position. We can see the   
   >> evidence that persuades billions of people to believe God does exist,   
   >> whatever   
   >> name they refer to him by and whatever they think about him. Atheists   
   >> blatantly   
   >> dishonestly deny that evidence.   
   >   
   >   
   > How is people believing in something evidence that that something exists?   
   >   
   By that standard, Santa Clause exists for several weeks each year.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)