XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:09:58 -0500, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:49:18 -0400, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >     By that logic UFO's and Elvis sightings   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)