XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 22:15:47 -0700, 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?   
      
       Because they have to have reasons to believe it exists in order to believe   
   it exists. If you can't comprehend that it probably means you do or at least   
   have believed in things for absolutely no reason at all, since you seem to feel   
   that it's likely to happen with billions of other people too. Of course there   
   is   
   the possibility that you who are at the lowest possible point in regards to   
   considering the possibility of God's existence, somehow imagine yourself to be   
   above most people in that regard. That would put you below the level of most   
   special ed students from what I've been led to believe. My sister worked with   
   them as a teacher for decades. After encountering atheists who are at the   
   lowest   
   level as I pointed out, but consider themselves to be authorities on subjects   
   they can't even get as "far" as the starting line with, I wondered if special   
   ed   
   students also were in a similar position, considering themselves to somehow be   
   above all the other people who in reality are above them. But she said no,   
   they're usually pretty well aware of the position they're in. The fact that   
   atheists are not is evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan's   
   influence on their overly challenged minds as I've pointed out a number of   
   times.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)