XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:28:58 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 09-October-2014 4:15 PM, 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 don't believe for absolutely no reason   
      
       It seems even an atheist should be able to figure that out. Especially one   
   who denies believing God doesn't exist.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)