Discussion:
Undeniable ruination of news group atheists
(too old to reply)
T***@tcher
2014-10-31 20:05:14 UTC
Permalink
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.

In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
presented to them by ***@.not The challenge was a simple one that they should be
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
felix_unger
2014-10-31 22:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. Loading Image...
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Free Lunch
2014-11-01 13:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".

Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence. Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
m***@.not.
2014-11-04 00:35:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:31:10 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence. Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives. They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov, since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
Free Lunch
2014-11-04 00:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence.
None.
Post by m***@.not.
Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives.
No.
Post by m***@.not.
They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
Tell us about the alleged evidence you know you have.
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov, since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
There is no evidence to support any gods. You've made it absolutely
clear that you realize that but are too dishonest to acknowledge it.
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
You preach a religion that you cannot defend.
felix_unger
2014-11-04 06:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence.
None.
Post by m***@.not.
Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives.
No.
you cannot possibly know what any other person experiences or not, idiot
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
Tell us about the alleged evidence you know you have.
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov, since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
There is no evidence to support any gods.
there is, but there's none to support no gods exist
Post by Free Lunch
You've made it absolutely
clear that you realize that but are too dishonest to acknowledge it.
that's another lie
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
You preach a religion that you cannot defend.
he doesn't preach any religion. he just argues against the dishonesty of
atheists, as do I
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:46:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Free Lunch provided clear evidence of his lies:
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence.
None.
Post by m***@.not.
Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives.
No.
Post by m***@.not.
They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
Tell us about the alleged evidence you know you have.
LOL. Why would I insult God if he has helped me, by telling someone who I
know in advance could not only never appreciate it but would be insulting of the
possibility? The fact that nothing in your life has ever given you reason to
consider the possibility that God exists is from my pov evidence that he does,
since there's plenty in some people's lives but none in people he would have no
reason to help, like you. I will say that what makes it seem most likely in day
to day life is not so much the things that happen, as the WAY they happen. The
timing of things is not the only thing, but the biggest thing.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov, since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
There is no evidence to support any gods. You've made it absolutely
clear that you realize that but are too dishonest to acknowledge it.
LOL!!! You just provided clear evidence that you DID lie, in response to a
challenge to provide evidence that you did not.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
You preach a religion that you cannot defend.
Again in response to a challenge to provide evidence you didn't lie, you
provided clear evidence that you DID lie. Why did you lie to begin with? What
did you think you could possibly gain by lying about something you could make no
attempt at all to support, do you have any idea at all?
Free Lunch
2014-11-06 23:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence.
None.
Post by m***@.not.
Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives.
No.
Post by m***@.not.
They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
Tell us about the alleged evidence you know you have.
LOL. Why would I insult God if he has helped me, by telling someone who I
know in advance could not only never appreciate it but would be insulting of the
possibility? The fact that nothing in your life has ever given you reason to
consider the possibility that God exists is from my pov evidence that he does,
since there's plenty in some people's lives but none in people he would have no
reason to help, like you. I will say that what makes it seem most likely in day
to day life is not so much the things that happen, as the WAY they happen. The
timing of things is not the only thing, but the biggest thing.
So you know you are bullshitting and have decided to double down on your
own dishonesty. Clearly you have invented a very disgusting god to
worship.
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov, since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
There is no evidence to support any gods. You've made it absolutely
clear that you realize that but are too dishonest to acknowledge it.
LOL!!! You just provided clear evidence that you DID lie, in response to a
challenge to provide evidence that you did not.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
You preach a religion that you cannot defend.
Again in response to a challenge to provide evidence you didn't lie, you
provided clear evidence that you DID lie. Why did you lie to begin with? What
did you think you could possibly gain by lying about something you could make no
attempt at all to support, do you have any idea at all?
felix_unger
2014-11-07 07:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence.
None.
Post by m***@.not.
Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives.
No.
Post by m***@.not.
They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
Tell us about the alleged evidence you know you have.
LOL. Why would I insult God if he has helped me, by telling someone who I
know in advance could not only never appreciate it but would be insulting of the
possibility?
I believe it's characterized as 'casting pearls before swine'.. :)
Post by m***@.not.
The fact that nothing in your life has ever given you reason to
consider the possibility that God exists is from my pov evidence that he does,
since there's plenty in some people's lives but none in people he would have no
reason to help, like you. I will say that what makes it seem most likely in day
to day life is not so much the things that happen, as the WAY they happen. The
timing of things is not the only thing, but the biggest thing.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov, since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
There is no evidence to support any gods. You've made it absolutely
clear that you realize that but are too dishonest to acknowledge it.
LOL!!! You just provided clear evidence that you DID lie, in response to a
challenge to provide evidence that you did not.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
You preach a religion that you cannot defend.
Again in response to a challenge to provide evidence you didn't lie, you
provided clear evidence that you DID lie. Why did you lie to begin with? What
did you think you could possibly gain by lying about something you could make no
attempt at all to support, do you have any idea at all?
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
felix_unger
2014-11-04 05:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence. Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives. They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
true. and the irony of the atheist position is that they ridicule those
who do have a basis (evidence) for their beliefs, while having no
evidence for theirs.
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov,
he pulled it out of his rear end..
Post by m***@.not.
since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
indeed!
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:46:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:58:21 +1100, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence. Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives. They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
true. and the irony of the atheist position is that they ridicule those
who do have a basis (evidence) for their beliefs, while having no
evidence for theirs.
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov,
he pulled it out of his rear end..
Yes, his response showed that very clearly.
Post by felix_unger
Post by m***@.not.
since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
indeed!
Now that he has lied, and then clearly shown that he lied by his response to
a challenge to provide evidence he did not lie, do you think he'll lie about all
of that even though HE has shown that it's clearly true?
felix_unger
2014-11-07 07:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by felix_unger
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Free Lunch
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
"evidence".
There's plenty of evidence. Probably every person who believes God exists
has experienced personal evidence in their own lives. They don't mention it much
to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the most
clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
true. and the irony of the atheist position is that they ridicule those
who do have a basis (evidence) for their beliefs, while having no
evidence for theirs.
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
about gods is supported by evidence.
That's a blatant lie from my pov,
he pulled it out of his rear end..
Yes, his response showed that very clearly.
Post by felix_unger
Post by m***@.not.
since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
Post by Free Lunch
Why should anyone believe a
religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
something that he has no evidence for?
You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something that
he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
THAT from there.
indeed!
Now that he has lied, and then clearly shown that he lied by his response to
a challenge to provide evidence he did not lie, do you think he'll lie about all
of that even though HE has shown that it's clearly true?
I don't bother with him at all as he never entertains any possibility.
all you'll ever get out of him is a denial that there is any evidence
for God
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-04 00:35:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:11:56 +1100, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Apparently they can't even make an attempt. They've certainly shown that
they don't have any idea what they thought they were trying to talk about. It
seems that they're now aware of their position since they don't try to defend
themselves or their positon any more.
Free Lunch
2014-11-04 00:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Apparently they can't even make an attempt. They've certainly shown that
they don't have any idea what they thought they were trying to talk about. It
seems that they're now aware of their position since they don't try to defend
themselves or their positon any more.
Go preach your religious nonsense elsewhere. You both know that you have
no evidence to support any claims about gods.
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:46:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:43:50 -0600, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Apparently they can't even make an attempt. They've certainly shown that
they don't have any idea what they thought they were trying to talk about. It
seems that they're now aware of their position since they don't try to defend
themselves or their positon any more.
Go preach your religious nonsense elsewhere. You both know that you have
no evidence to support any claims about gods.
You blatantly lie that there's no evidence even though we ONLY have evidence
that God does exist, and there is NO evidence he does not. You make it clear you
will not refer to the evidence that exists as evidence. You make it clear that
you believe if God does exist, that YOU believe there should be stronger
evidence of his existence. YOU make it clear you believe that if God does exist
there should be some sort of proof that he exists, yet you lie about that. So
you lie that there is no evidence, you lie that you think there should be proof
of it if God does exist, but you don't have the slightest clue what sort of
proof you think there should be, or where you think it should be, or why you
think it should be available to humans. THAT is the amusing though pathetic
position you and your fellow atheists ARE IN. You are also in the position of
being ashamed of being in that position and wanting to deny it, though you will
almost certainly never make any attempt to move out of that position you're
ashamed of being in. LOL!!! Again just describing the position you people are in
is HILARIOUS!
Free Lunch
2014-11-06 23:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.
Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence
makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's
existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
true!
Post by T***@tcher
In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced their
complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so
entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they
think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God
should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have the
slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less where he
should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the atheists
themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans. That
failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for
demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for them to
be presented with.
yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
Apparently they can't even make an attempt. They've certainly shown that
they don't have any idea what they thought they were trying to talk about. It
seems that they're now aware of their position since they don't try to defend
themselves or their positon any more.
Go preach your religious nonsense elsewhere. You both know that you have
no evidence to support any claims about gods.
You blatantly lie that there's no evidence even though we ONLY have evidence
that God does exist, and there is NO evidence he does not.
You _know_ that you have no evidence. You know it and lie about it. You
invent a god that you need to lie about. What a pitiable creature you
are.
Post by m***@.not.
You make it clear you
will not refer to the evidence that exists as evidence.
I will accept all evidence. I will not accept your intentional false
claims because we both know they are not evidence.
Post by m***@.not.
You make it clear that
you believe if God does exist, that YOU believe there should be stronger
evidence of his existence. YOU make it clear you believe that if God does exist
there should be some sort of proof that he exists, yet you lie about that. So
you lie that there is no evidence, you lie that you think there should be proof
of it if God does exist, but you don't have the slightest clue what sort of
proof you think there should be, or where you think it should be, or why you
think it should be available to humans. THAT is the amusing though pathetic
position you and your fellow atheists ARE IN. You are also in the position of
being ashamed of being in that position and wanting to deny it, though you will
almost certainly never make any attempt to move out of that position you're
ashamed of being in. LOL!!! Again just describing the position you people are in
is HILARIOUS!
You worship the lies you tell, nothing else.
Sylvia Else
2014-11-02 12:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?

Sylvia.
Bob Casanova
2014-11-02 17:53:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Malte Runz
2014-11-03 23:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-04 06:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's >> existence,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with >> evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been
presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
yes
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-04 10:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's >> existence,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with >> evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been
presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
yes
Then name one. Don' give me a google search, 'miracles happen', and let me
sift through the millions of hits. No, you find me a specific example of an
incident that defies natural laws and can only be explained by devine
intervention (or an example of what you classify as a miracle). Go:
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-04 10:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's >> existence,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with >> evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been
presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
yes
Then name one. Don't give me a google search, 'miracles happen', and
let me
sift through the millions of hits. No, you find me a specific example of an
incident that defies natural laws and can only be explained by devine
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lourdes-officially-records-69th-miracle/

"The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some
7,000 inexplicable cures"
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous

I'm only saying that this is evidence for the existence of God. I don't
have to prove that any miracles actually occurred.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-04 20:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's >> existence,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with >> evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is
evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been
presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
yes
Then name one. Don't give me a google search, 'miracles happen', and let
me
sift through the millions of hits. No, you find me a specific example of an
incident that defies natural laws and can only be explained by devine
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html
Okay, then I'll pick one (1), since you're reluctant to do so:

***
Mrs Catherine LATAPIE

Born in 1820

Lived in Loubajac, near to Lourdes. Cured 1st. March 1858 in her 39th year.

Miracle on 18th. January 1862, by Mgr Laurence, Bishop of Tarbes.
[...]
She had injured her right hand after a fall from a tree, [...] She could not
use the last two fingers of her right hand, which were held in typical
palmar flexion. [...] She [...] set off for Lourdes.

[...] Then with all simplicity, she bathed her hand in the little hollow
which had already collected water from the Spring.

Straightaway her fingers returned to normal.
***

Is that a documented miracle? An injured hand with two lame fingers, dipped
in water, and, bingo, the fingers worked again? There is absolutely no doubt
in your mind that this is exactly what happened? That, to you, is evidence
that there is a god and that he healed a woman's hand in 1858?

Allow me to question your judgement.
Post by felix_unger
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lourdes-officially-records-69th-miracle/
"The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some 7,000
inexplicable cures"
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous
***
Each year more than 6 million pilgrims visit the Marian shrine at the town
of Lourdes, renowned for its miracle cures. But who decides when a cure is a
miracle?

The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some 7,000
inexplicable cures since the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in Lourdes in
February 1858, as attested in the book "The Doctor in the Face of Miracles"
("Il medico di fronte ai miracoli"), written by the Italian Doctors
Association.
***

67 out of roughly twohundred million tries*. Honestly, do you believe that
there is a holy spring in France that can cure people's illness? Really? No
doubt whatsoever? Stephen Hawking could be dipped in the water and possibly
walk away completely healed? Ebola? No problemo! Have a sip of Lourdes water
and you're cured... well, there is a 67 in a 200 million chance! Price the
Lord (sic)!
*http://sacredsites.com/europe/france/lourdes.html
Post by felix_unger
I'm only saying that this is evidence for the existence of God. ...
And a blob on photo is evidence for the existence of UFO's... or of a tiny
piece of cheese on the lense? I'm saying that no documented miracle ever
happened at Lourdes. Boatloads of stories and guarantees from the RCC, but
no physical evidence has ever been presented to be examined by experts.
Prove me wrong. It's all... it's all bullshit giving desperate, sick people
false hope and creating quite a bit of cash on the side for the people
involved. I can't help it if you believe the delusion, but I don't, and you
still owe me an example of a "documented" non-lourdesian miracle.
Post by felix_unger
.. I don't have to prove that any miracles actually occurred.
Come on, man! If you say that the reported miracles is your example of
evidence for the existence of God, you damn well have to show me that they
actually occured as claimed. If they didn't they would be neither miracles
nor evidence. Hope you see that.
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-05 06:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's >> existence,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When >>
presented
with >> evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that
it is
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been
presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
yes
Then name one. Don't give me a google search, 'miracles happen',
and let > me
sift through the millions of hits. No, you find me a specific
example of > an
incident that defies natural laws and can only be explained by devine
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html
***
Mrs Catherine LATAPIE
Born in 1820
Lived in Loubajac, near to Lourdes. Cured 1st. March 1858 in her 39th year.
Miracle on 18th. January 1862, by Mgr Laurence, Bishop of Tarbes.
[...]
She had injured her right hand after a fall from a tree, [...] She
could not use the last two fingers of her right hand, which were held
in typical palmar flexion. [...] She [...] set off for Lourdes.
[...] Then with all simplicity, she bathed her hand in the little
hollow which had already collected water from the Spring.
Straightaway her fingers returned to normal.
***
Is that a documented miracle? An injured hand with two lame fingers,
dipped in water, and, bingo, the fingers worked again? There is
absolutely no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what happened?
That, to you, is evidence that there is a god and that he healed a
woman's hand in 1858?
Allow me to question your judgement.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lourdes-officially-records-69th-miracle/
"The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some
7,000 inexplicable cures"
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous
***
Each year more than 6 million pilgrims visit the Marian shrine at the
town of Lourdes, renowned for its miracle cures. But who decides when
a cure is a miracle?
The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some
7,000 inexplicable cures since the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in
Lourdes in February 1858, as attested in the book "The Doctor in the
Face of Miracles" ("Il medico di fronte ai miracoli"), written by the
Italian Doctors Association.
***
67 out of roughly twohundred million tries*. Honestly, do you believe
that there is a holy spring in France that can cure people's illness?
Really? No doubt whatsoever? Stephen Hawking could be dipped in the
water and possibly walk away completely healed? Ebola? No problemo!
Have a sip of Lourdes water and you're cured... well, there is a 67 in
a 200 million chance! Price the Lord (sic)!
*http://sacredsites.com/europe/france/lourdes.html
I'm only saying that this is evidence for the existence of God. ...
And a blob on photo is evidence for the existence of UFO's... or of a
tiny piece of cheese on the lense? I'm saying that no documented
miracle ever happened at Lourdes. Boatloads of stories and guarantees
from the RCC, but no physical evidence has ever been presented to be
examined by experts. Prove me wrong.
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf
Post by Malte Runz
It's all... it's all bullshit giving desperate, sick people false hope
and creating quite a bit of cash on the side for the people involved.
I can't help it if you believe the delusion, but I don't, and you
still owe me an example of a "documented" non-lourdesian miracle.
I don't owe you anything since I don't assert that miracles have
actually happened, but I believe they may have
Post by Malte Runz
.. I don't have to prove that any miracles actually occurred.
Come on, man! If you say that the reported miracles is your example of
evidence for the existence of God, you damn well have to show me that
they actually occured as claimed.
no I don't. do I have to prove that UFO's exist to know that the
reported sightings of UFO's are evidence for UFO's?
Post by Malte Runz
If they didn't they would be neither miracles nor evidence. Hope you
see that.
the reports of miracles are evidence for the existence of God, whether
they occurred or not, or whether God exists or not. it's just plain
common sense; to anyone except atheists apparently!.
what you keep harping on about and coming back to is the validity of any
evidence. you want to discuss and evaluate the worth of the evidence
without admitting that evidence exists. that's crazy!
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-05 11:18:32 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Malte Runz
Come on, man! If you say that the reported miracles is your example of
evidence for the existence of God, you damn well have to show me that
they actually occured as claimed.
no I don't. do I have to prove that UFO's exist to know that the reported
sightings of UFO's are evidence for UFO's?
How can the 'sightings' be evidence of something if that something doesn't
exist? How can you say that people being healed at Lourdes is evidence of
God, if you cannot show one documented example of a real healing?
Post by Malte Runz
If they didn't they would be neither miracles nor evidence. Hope you see
that.
the reports of miracles are evidence for the existence of God, whether
they occurred or not, or whether God exists or not. ...
That's where you're wrong. Ice on a lake is evidence of below freezing
temperatures. But if the 'ice' turns out to be plastic, the plastic isn't
evidence of low temperatures. If the blob in the photo turns out to be a
speck of dust on the lense, it is not evidence of UFO's. And if you couldn't
tell the difference from the beginning the blob is evidence of neither.
... it's just plain common sense; ...
Comment on the ice/plastic example.
... to anyone except atheists apparently!.
what you keep harping on about and coming back to is the validity of any
evidence. ...
Exactly. Evidence is all about validity. An unsubstantiated tale of a healed
hand from 1858 is about as invalid as it gets, and is not evidence of God
performing miracles. (You didn't reveal whether or not you believe that
those hands were actually healed. I take that as a sign of common sense.)
... you want to discuss and evaluate the worth of the evidence without
admitting that evidence exists. that's crazy!
Wrong. You want to call 'the face Jesus' on a burnt toast evidence of God. I
don't say the toast doesn't exist, I say it's not evidence regardless of
what others might believe. I know people claim to have been healed at
Lourdes, but noone has ever been shown to have actually been miraculously
healed.
--
Malte Runz
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's >> existence,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When >>
presented
with >> evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that
it is
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been
presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
yes
Then name one. Don't give me a google search, 'miracles happen',
and let > me
sift through the millions of hits. No, you find me a specific
example of > an
incident that defies natural laws and can only be explained by devine
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html
***
Mrs Catherine LATAPIE
Born in 1820
Lived in Loubajac, near to Lourdes. Cured 1st. March 1858 in her 39th year.
Miracle on 18th. January 1862, by Mgr Laurence, Bishop of Tarbes.
[...]
She had injured her right hand after a fall from a tree, [...] She
could not use the last two fingers of her right hand, which were held
in typical palmar flexion. [...] She [...] set off for Lourdes.
[...] Then with all simplicity, she bathed her hand in the little
hollow which had already collected water from the Spring.
Straightaway her fingers returned to normal.
***
Is that a documented miracle? An injured hand with two lame fingers,
dipped in water, and, bingo, the fingers worked again? There is
absolutely no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what happened?
That, to you, is evidence that there is a god and that he healed a
woman's hand in 1858?
Allow me to question your judgement.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lourdes-officially-records-69th-miracle/
"The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some
7,000 inexplicable cures"
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous
***
Each year more than 6 million pilgrims visit the Marian shrine at the
town of Lourdes, renowned for its miracle cures. But who decides when
a cure is a miracle?
The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some
7,000 inexplicable cures since the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in
Lourdes in February 1858, as attested in the book "The Doctor in the
Face of Miracles" ("Il medico di fronte ai miracoli"), written by the
Italian Doctors Association.
***
67 out of roughly twohundred million tries*. Honestly, do you believe
that there is a holy spring in France that can cure people's illness?
Really? No doubt whatsoever? Stephen Hawking could be dipped in the
water and possibly walk away completely healed? Ebola? No problemo!
Have a sip of Lourdes water and you're cured... well, there is a 67 in
a 200 million chance! Price the Lord (sic)!
*http://sacredsites.com/europe/france/lourdes.html
I'm only saying that this is evidence for the existence of God. ...
And a blob on photo is evidence for the existence of UFO's... or of a
tiny piece of cheese on the lense? I'm saying that no documented
miracle ever happened at Lourdes. Boatloads of stories and guarantees
from the RCC, but no physical evidence has ever been presented to be
examined by experts. Prove me wrong.
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf
Post by Malte Runz
It's all... it's all bullshit giving desperate, sick people false hope
and creating quite a bit of cash on the side for the people involved.
I can't help it if you believe the delusion, but I don't, and you
still owe me an example of a "documented" non-lourdesian miracle.
I don't owe you anything since I don't assert that miracles have
actually happened, but I believe they may have
Post by Malte Runz
.. I don't have to prove that any miracles actually occurred.
Come on, man! If you say that the reported miracles is your example of
evidence for the existence of God, you damn well have to show me that
they actually occured as claimed.
no I don't. do I have to prove that UFO's exist to know that the
reported sightings of UFO's are evidence for UFO's?
Post by Malte Runz
If they didn't they would be neither miracles nor evidence. Hope you
see that.
the reports of miracles are evidence for the existence of God, whether
they occurred or not, or whether God exists or not. it's just plain
common sense; to anyone except atheists apparently!.
The fact that it's so obvious is why atheists are evidence of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is influencing their stupid little minds.
The atheists themselves support what was written in the Bible well over a
thousand years ago. LOL....it's amusing that by insisting there is no evidence,
atheists themselves ARE evidence. Again we see that the position they're in is
hilarious!
Post by felix_unger
what you keep harping on about and coming back to is the validity of any
evidence. you want to discuss and evaluate the worth of the evidence
without admitting that evidence exists. that's crazy!
It's crazy in how incredibly stupid it is.
felix_unger
2014-11-07 00:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Malte Runz
Post by felix_unger
.. I don't have to prove that any miracles actually occurred.
Come on, man! If you say that the reported miracles is your example of
evidence for the existence of God, you damn well have to show me that
they actually occured as claimed.
no I don't. do I have to prove that UFO's exist to know that the
reported sightings of UFO's are evidence for UFO's?
Post by Malte Runz
If they didn't they would be neither miracles nor evidence. Hope you
see that.
the reports of miracles are evidence for the existence of God, whether
they occurred or not, or whether God exists or not. it's just plain
common sense; to anyone except atheists apparently!.
The fact that it's so obvious is why atheists are evidence of God's
existence by being evidence that Satan is influencing their stupid little minds.
The atheists themselves support what was written in the Bible well over a
thousand years ago. LOL....it's amusing that by insisting there is no evidence,
atheists themselves ARE evidence. Again we see that the position they're in is
hilarious!
right again! their behaviour bears out what is written in the bible.
IIRC you posted a lot of those bible quotes a while back
Post by m***@.not.
Post by felix_unger
what you keep harping on about and coming back to is the validity of any
evidence. you want to discuss and evaluate the worth of the evidence
without admitting that evidence exists. that's crazy!
It's crazy in how incredibly stupid it is.
they can't see the forrest for the trees
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:50:46 +1100, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's >> existence,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with >> evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been
presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
yes
Then name one. Don't give me a google search, 'miracles happen', and
let me
sift through the millions of hits. No, you find me a specific example of an
incident that defies natural laws and can only be explained by devine
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lourdes-officially-records-69th-miracle/
"The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some
7,000 inexplicable cures"
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous
I'm only saying that this is evidence for the existence of God. I don't
have to prove that any miracles actually occurred.
That's one of the basic starting lines they can't get as "far" as. Since
Chicken is scared to even read any of my posts any more, much less to respond,
would you care to lead the pathetic coward to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

so we can see what sort of chicken dance and song of denial he does in response
that evidence? Of course any time you show him something he doesn't want to
think about, or challenge him to try to explain some of the apparently retarded
things he does think, or try to encourage him to think things through that he
claims he is capable of taking into consideration, you're taking the chance of
over challenging his stupid inept little mind to the point that he'll become
horribly afraid of you too.
felix_unger
2014-11-07 08:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by felix_unger
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's >> existence,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with >> evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been
presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
yes
Then name one. Don't give me a google search, 'miracles happen', and
let me
sift through the millions of hits. No, you find me a specific example of an
incident that defies natural laws and can only be explained by devine
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lourdes-officially-records-69th-miracle/
"The Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracles and some
7,000 inexplicable cures"
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous
I'm only saying that this is evidence for the existence of God. I don't
have to prove that any miracles actually occurred.
That's one of the basic starting lines they can't get as "far" as.
it's amazing how they just don't seem to know such basic things
Post by m***@.not.
Since
Chicken is scared to even read any of my posts any more, much less to respond,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda
ok, since this post in under my handle, he should see it
Post by m***@.not.
so we can see what sort of chicken dance and song of denial he does in response
that evidence? Of course any time you show him something he doesn't want to
think about, or challenge him to try to explain some of the apparently retarded
things he does think, or try to encourage him to think things through that he
claims he is capable of taking into consideration, you're taking the chance of
over challenging his stupid inept little mind to the point that he'll become
horribly afraid of you too.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Bob Casanova
2014-11-04 13:57:23 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
felix_unger
2014-11-04 21:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Free Lunch
2014-11-04 23:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
An event may have occurred and someone alleged that it was miraculous.
No evidence supports the supposition.
Bob Casanova
2014-11-05 17:42:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred. As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Malte Runz
2014-11-05 21:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's
existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with
evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred. As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
Neither does mine. This one, on the other hand, is as close to actual proof
as one can get (most have probably seen it before):
http://tinyurl.com/jw5obm9
--
Malte Runz
Bob Casanova
2014-11-06 18:17:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 22:02:32 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's
existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with
evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred. As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
Neither does mine. This one, on the other hand, is as close to actual proof
http://tinyurl.com/jw5obm9
Nope. And I hope to never see it again.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
felix_unger
2014-11-07 07:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 22:02:32 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's
existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with
evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred. As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
Neither does mine. This one, on the other hand, is as close to actual proof
http://tinyurl.com/jw5obm9
Nope. And I hope to never see it again.
LOL! I have to agree
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-07 15:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 22:02:32 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
(snip)
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred. As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
Neither does mine. This one, on the other hand, is as close to actual proof
http://tinyurl.com/jw5obm9
Nope. And I hope to never see it again.
LOL! I have to agree
According to you it's evidence of God's existence if somebody believes it
is.
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-06 08:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with
evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred.
the 'miracles' at Lourdes are both documented and evaluated..

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous

so they would meet your criteria then
Post by Bob Casanova
As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-06 11:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's
existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with
evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred.
the 'miracles' at Lourdes are both documented and evaluated..
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html
A list of stories dating from 1858 to 1893. A few examples (apart from the
one I already gave, and you didn't comment on):

***
Marie MOREAU

Born in 1841.

Lived in Tartas (Landes). Cured on 9.11.1858, when nearly 17 years old.
Miracle on 18th January 1862, by Mgr Laurence, Bishop of Tarbes.

The first cure "far away from Lourdes"!

At the beginning of 1858, when Marie was 16 years of age, she contracted an
inflammatory disease of the eyes.

Despite the remedies tried, this condition led to a severe degree of visual
impairment, bordering on blindness.

After her father heard of Mrs Rizan's cure, he decided to go to Lourdes to
get some water from the Grotto.

On the 8th. November,1858, the family started a novena of prayers. In the
evening, the young girl soaked a bandage with Lourdes' water, and tied it
over her eyes.

The next morning, 9th. November, at the moment Marie removed the bandage,
she was aware that her sight was fully restored.
...
***
Do you believe that it happened? Do you truely believe that 'holy water'
from Lourdes can cure blindness?


***
Joachime DEHANT

Born in 1849 in Velaine/s/Sambre

Lived in Gesves (Belgium). Cured 13.9.1878, in her 29th year. Miracle on
25.4.1908, by Mgr Thomas Louis Heylen, Bishop of Namur.

The cure is the oldest one recognised later on as miraculous in Lourdes, of
a "non-native""... a sick-pilgrim from abroad.

Joachime was 29 years old when she arrived there on the evening of
12.9.1878, with an oozing and gangrenous ulcer on her right leg. This ulcer
covered two thirds of the surface of the side of the leg, and what was even
more serious was its depth, which led to a permanent
contraction of the muscles, causing a club foot.

The lesion was at least ten years old, and owing to this affection which no
treatment could cure, her general state of health was very grave. The next
day, the 13th, she took baths during the morning, her leg wrapped in
bandages.

After the second, there was no trace of the ulcer. The flesh and the tendons
had virtually become normal again, and the skin was new and rose-coloured.
And after another bath later on, her foot returned to its normal position.
***
Same question. Do you believe that this happened? Oozing and gangrenous
ulcers disappearing, miraculously, over night? From club foot to normal foot
in two days. This really happened and is evidence of God?
Post by felix_unger
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous
Yes, yes. This is /how/ they claim they'll do it, but you still haven't
provided one example that holds water. Tales of miracles supposedly
happening 150 years ago... are you really buying that crap?
Post by felix_unger
so they would meet your criteria then
Not at all. This is on par with the face on Mars. 'It has two eyes, two
nostrils and a mouth. Evidence that it is a face!'
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
'But the Catholic Priest guarantees that it is the truth... so it must be.
He has no reason to lie.'

So, be honest. Do you believe that the water from Lourdes has special powers
and can cure all those people?
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-06 23:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of
God's
existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When
presented >>>>>>> with
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that
it is
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred.
the 'miracles' at Lourdes are both documented and evaluated..
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html
A list of stories dating from 1858 to 1893. A few examples (apart from
***
Marie MOREAU
Born in 1841.
Lived in Tartas (Landes). Cured on 9.11.1858, when nearly 17 years
old. Miracle on 18th January 1862, by Mgr Laurence, Bishop of Tarbes.
The first cure "far away from Lourdes"!
At the beginning of 1858, when Marie was 16 years of age, she
contracted an inflammatory disease of the eyes.
Despite the remedies tried, this condition led to a severe degree of
visual impairment, bordering on blindness.
After her father heard of Mrs Rizan's cure, he decided to go to
Lourdes to get some water from the Grotto.
On the 8th. November,1858, the family started a novena of prayers. In
the evening, the young girl soaked a bandage with Lourdes' water, and
tied it over her eyes.
The next morning, 9th. November, at the moment Marie removed the
bandage, she was aware that her sight was fully restored.
....
***
Do you believe that it happened? Do you truely believe that 'holy
water' from Lourdes can cure blindness?
***
Joachime DEHANT
Born in 1849 in Velaine/s/Sambre
Lived in Gesves (Belgium). Cured 13.9.1878, in her 29th year. Miracle
on 25.4.1908, by Mgr Thomas Louis Heylen, Bishop of Namur.
The cure is the oldest one recognised later on as miraculous in
Lourdes, of a "non-native""... a sick-pilgrim from abroad.
Joachime was 29 years old when she arrived there on the evening of
12.9.1878, with an oozing and gangrenous ulcer on her right leg. This
ulcer covered two thirds of the surface of the side of the leg, and
what was even more serious was its depth, which led to a permanent
contraction of the muscles, causing a club foot.
The lesion was at least ten years old, and owing to this affection
which no treatment could cure, her general state of health was very
grave. The next day, the 13th, she took baths during the morning, her
leg wrapped in bandages.
After the second, there was no trace of the ulcer. The flesh and the
tendons had virtually become normal again, and the skin was new and
rose-coloured. And after another bath later on, her foot returned to
its normal position.
***
Same question. Do you believe that this happened? Oozing and
gangrenous ulcers disappearing, miraculously, over night? From club
foot to normal foot in two days. This really happened and is evidence
of God?
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous
Yes, yes. This is /how/ they claim they'll do it, but you still
haven't provided one example that holds water. Tales of miracles
supposedly happening 150 years ago... are you really buying that crap?
so they would meet your criteria then
Not at all. This is on par with the face on Mars. 'It has two eyes,
two nostrils and a mouth. Evidence that it is a face!'
Post by Bob Casanova
As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
'But the Catholic Priest guarantees that it is the truth... so it must
be. He has no reason to lie.'
So, be honest. Do you believe that the water from Lourdes has special
powers and can cure all those people?
I don't discuss my personal beliefs in public. I just argue against what
I disagree with.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-07 15:56:20 UTC
Permalink
"felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen news:***@mid.individual.net...

(snip)
I don't discuss my personal beliefs in public. ...
You're hiding behind a nym, and you don't tell what really you believe.
You're a castrated and declawed little pussy.
... I just argue against what I disagree with.
You don't argue. You proclaim, ignore rebuttals, suck mur's dick, and
restate your claims unaltered. You're playing poker with monopoly money.
--
Malte Runz
Bob Casanova
2014-11-06 18:15:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 19:24:33 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's
existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with
evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,
they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred.
the 'miracles' at Lourdes are both documented and evaluated..
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html
OK, let's take this quote from your cited reference as an
example:

"Concerning this cure, doctors Dozous, Vergez, and also Dr.
Peyrus, who had treated him, could see nothing else than the
almighty power of God."

This is known as an argument from incredulity, and is
especially appropriate given the state of the medical art in
1858. "Unknown" does not equal "performed by God", and
saying it does is also a fallacy, the fallacy of the false
dichotomy.
Post by felix_unger
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/how-lourdes-cures-are-recognized-as-miraculous
From this reference:

"At the shrine's French-language Web page
(www.lourdes-france.com) the medical office explains that
its objective is to be able to declare a cure 'certain,
definitive and medically inexplicable.'

To do so, it applies four criteria:

-- 'the fact and the diagnosis of the illness is first of
all established and correctly diagnosed';

-- 'the prognosis must be permanent or terminal in the short
term';

-- 'the cure is immediate, without convalescence, complete
and lasting';

-- 'the prescribed treatment could not be attributed to the
cause of this cure or be an aid to it.' "

All of which amounts to "We don't know how this happened, so
it was an Act of God", yet another false dichotomy.
Post by felix_unger
so they would meet your criteria then
Nope; sorry. While personal testimony, arguments from
incredulity and false dichotomies may be evidence to you,
the aren't evidence as defined by science.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
As I
noted elsethread, we have different definitions for
"evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
You're aware that all apparent miracles are evidence of God yet some of them
you know are fakes. You also consider that some of them may be actual miracles.
These people can't get as "far" as any of that, much less go on to consider
which ones might be real and which ones might be fakes. They are like true
morons when it comes to any aspect of the possibility of a God being associated
with Earth.
felix_unger
2014-11-06 23:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with
evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.
That, too.
what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?
You're aware that all apparent miracles are evidence of God yet some of them
you know are fakes. You also consider that some of them may be actual miracles.
These people can't get as "far" as any of that, much less go on to consider
which ones might be real and which ones might be fakes. They are like true
morons when it comes to any aspect of the possibility of a God being associated
with Earth.
exactly! you can explain things better than I can
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-04 00:35:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:53:11 -0700, Bob Casanova <***@buzz.off> wrote:
.
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
What do you think there should be? Why can't you people give respectable
examples of what type(s) of evidence you think there should be in addition to
the evidence you deny? Why can't you say where it should be? Why can't you
explain why it should be available to humans? Why can't you say why you can't
say, even after it has been explained for you? The answer is that you're ashamed
of your failings as you should be, and you're ashamed of your shame, as again
you should be. ALL OF YOU!
Free Lunch
2014-11-04 00:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
What do you think there should be? Why can't you people give respectable
examples of what type(s) of evidence you think there should be in addition to
the evidence you deny? Why can't you say where it should be? Why can't you
explain why it should be available to humans? Why can't you say why you can't
say, even after it has been explained for you? The answer is that you're ashamed
of your failings as you should be, and you're ashamed of your shame, as again
you should be. ALL OF YOU!
You never offered any evidence at all. Don't make excuses for your
dishonesty. Just because you allege that evidence exists, you have made
it clear that you know there is no such evidence and that you are being
dishonest in your attempt to deflect us from noting your dishonest
failure.

You preach a joke of a religion.
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:52:07 -0600, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
What do you think there should be? Why can't you people give respectable
examples of what type(s) of evidence you think there should be in addition to
the evidence you deny? Why can't you say where it should be? Why can't you
explain why it should be available to humans? Why can't you say why you can't
say, even after it has been explained for you? The answer is that you're ashamed
of your failings as you should be, and you're ashamed of your shame, as again
you should be. ALL OF YOU!
You never offered any evidence at all.
That's a blatant lie. By telling such blatant lies YOU YOURSELF are more
evidence, as I feel sure I've pointed out for you in the past.
Post by Free Lunch
Don't make excuses for your dishonesty.
I didn't make anything that even appears to be an excuse for anything, so
again you're the one being dishonest. What I DID DO was to challenge you with
things that defeated you and always do defeat ALL OF YOU so absolutely and
entirely that you can't even attempt to meet the challenges, much less overcome
them. AGAIN you have shown me to be correct, and you have shown that you are
ashamed of your failings as I correctly pointed out.

BUT!!!!!!

Those challenges still remain. So you still have a chance to try providing
evidence that something I pointed out might not be entirely correct, and that
you might be able to address one or more of the challenges that so far have
defeated you entirely. This goes for ALL OF YOU!!! The challenges still remain
open for ANY OF YOU to try to address and overcome.
Free Lunch
2014-11-06 23:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
What do you think there should be? Why can't you people give respectable
examples of what type(s) of evidence you think there should be in addition to
the evidence you deny? Why can't you say where it should be? Why can't you
explain why it should be available to humans? Why can't you say why you can't
say, even after it has been explained for you? The answer is that you're ashamed
of your failings as you should be, and you're ashamed of your shame, as again
you should be. ALL OF YOU!
You never offered any evidence at all.
That's a blatant lie. By telling such blatant lies YOU YOURSELF are more
evidence, as I feel sure I've pointed out for you in the past.
Once again, you allege that you provided evidence but _never_ actually
address the fact that you never did.
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Free Lunch
Don't make excuses for your dishonesty.
I didn't make anything that even appears to be an excuse for anything, so
again you're the one being dishonest. What I DID DO was to challenge you with
things that defeated you and always do defeat ALL OF YOU so absolutely and
entirely that you can't even attempt to meet the challenges, much less overcome
them. AGAIN you have shown me to be correct, and you have shown that you are
ashamed of your failings as I correctly pointed out.
BUT!!!!!!
Those challenges still remain. So you still have a chance to try providing
evidence that something I pointed out might not be entirely correct, and that
you might be able to address one or more of the challenges that so far have
defeated you entirely. This goes for ALL OF YOU!!! The challenges still remain
open for ANY OF YOU to try to address and overcome.
You challenge is to explain why you need to lie about your god's
existence.
felix_unger
2014-11-04 06:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of
religious texts, number of believers and arguments from
incredulity?
What do you think there should be? Why can't you people give respectable
examples of what type(s) of evidence you think there should be in addition to
the evidence you deny? Why can't you say where it should be? Why can't you
explain why it should be available to humans? Why can't you say why you can't
say, even after it has been explained for you? The answer is that you're ashamed
of your failings as you should be, and you're ashamed of your shame, as again
you should be. ALL OF YOU!
asking for physical evidence of non-physical entities is like asking
physical entities to behave like gods
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-04 00:35:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, Sylvia Else <***@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
I'd also invite you to let us know what evidence you think there should be if
God exists, but by now we've learned that you haven't got the slightest clue
about that. You seem to think some should exist for some reason you can't
explain, yet you have no clue what it should be, where it should be, or why it
should be available to humans at all. Can you not appreciate how idiotic it is
for anyone to be in the position you're in, when just describing it is
hilarious?
Free Lunch
2014-11-04 00:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
I see that you have chosen, again, to engage in one of the favorite ways
that lying theists duck responsibility for the lies they tell. You run
away from the _fact_ that you have never offered any evidence that any
gods exist and that no one else has, either.
Post by m***@.not.
I'd also invite you to let us know what evidence you think there should be if
God exists, but by now we've learned that you haven't got the slightest clue
about that. You seem to think some should exist for some reason you can't
explain, yet you have no clue what it should be, where it should be, or why it
should be available to humans at all. Can you not appreciate how idiotic it is
for anyone to be in the position you're in, when just describing it is
hilarious?
You need to believe that even if a god exists that there never would be
any evidence, because you know there is no evidence.
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:50:44 -0600, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
I see that you have chosen, again, to engage in one of the favorite ways
that lying theists duck responsibility for the lies they tell. You run
away from the _fact_ that you have never offered any evidence that any
gods exist and that no one else has, either.
In contrast to that most blatant lie I've presented Sylvia and I feel
certain you as well with a list of things that are evidence. In fact I believe I
remember you specifically lying that they were not evidence, just as you now are
lying that I never presented you with the things you lied about when I presented
them to you.

I was challenging Sylvia to see if she/he/whatever is aware of the things I
presented, or is so clueless as to not be aware at all. You have shown yourself
to be either unaware or to be lying, without me having had to challenge you
directly. You just voluntarily jumped in and showed yourself to be one or the
other, and my guess is you are the latter.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by m***@.not.
I'd also invite you to let us know what evidence you think there should be if
God exists, but by now we've learned that you haven't got the slightest clue
about that. You seem to think some should exist for some reason you can't
explain, yet you have no clue what it should be, where it should be, or why it
should be available to humans at all. Can you not appreciate how idiotic it is
for anyone to be in the position you're in, when just describing it is
hilarious?
You need to believe that even if a god exists that there never would be
any evidence, because you know there is no evidence.
I know you're lying in part by the fact that you yourself are evidence.
However I'm also aware that there's no reason for God to provide everyone with
proof of his existence if he does exist, and there's no way humans could go and
get it if he didn't provided us with it deliberately. So I'm aware of the FACT
that there's no reason to think there "should be" proof of God's existence if he
does exist. I'm aware of and can appreciate that fact. You in contrast aren't
even aware of it even after I've pointed it out for you. HILARIOUS!
Sylvia Else
2014-11-04 00:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
The stuff I'm aware of pretty much matches the categories given by Bob,
and isn't real evidence.

So, do you have anything else?

Sylvia.
felix_unger
2014-11-04 06:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.not.
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, Sylvia Else
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
The stuff I'm aware of pretty much matches the categories given by
Bob, and isn't real evidence.
define 'real' evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
So, do you have anything else?
Sylvia.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:15:48 +1100, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.not.
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, Sylvia Else
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
The stuff I'm aware of pretty much matches the categories given by
Bob, and isn't real evidence.
define 'real' evidence
They prove consistently that even as they demand it, they don't have the
slightest clue what it is they think they're demanding. It seems that no people
capable of participating in these news groups should be so stupid, but then it
also seems none of them should be stupid enough to lie that there's no evidence.
One thing that they are proving without question, imo, is that they are
EXTREMELY comfortable with lying blatantly in public when the people they're
lying to are aware, and tell them they're aware, that they are lying.
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:56:10 +1100, Sylvia Else <***@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.not.
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
I'd also invite you to let us know what evidence you think there should be if
God exists, but by now we've learned that you haven't got the slightest clue
about that. You seem to think some should exist for some reason you can't
explain, yet you have no clue what it should be, where it should be, or why it
should be available to humans at all. Can you not appreciate how idiotic it is
for anyone to be in the position you're in, when just describing it is
hilarious?
The stuff I'm aware of pretty much matches the categories given by Bob,
and isn't real evidence.
So, do you have anything else?
Do I have more than there is? No. YOU still need to explain what more you
think there should be, where you think it should be, and why you think it should
be available if God exists. But you can't. The reason you can't is because
there's no reason why what you demand should be available to humans, and you've
proven that you can't even pretend it should. Unless you think you've finally
figured out some way to pretend there is, and if you think you have then PRESENT
IT ALREADY! I've been directly challenging all of you people on this for months
now and none of you have the slightest clue what you think you're trying to
demand even as you continue to demand it. Are you honestly unaware of what a
remarkably stupid position it is that you're in by doing that?
felix_unger
2014-11-04 06:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
how many times has this question been asked and answered here, just so
they can say it's not evidence. sheesh!
Post by m***@.not.
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
I'd also invite you to let us know what evidence you think there should be if
God exists, but by now we've learned that you haven't got the slightest clue
about that. You seem to think some should exist for some reason you can't
explain, yet you have no clue what it should be, where it should be, or why it
should be available to humans at all. Can you not appreciate how idiotic it is
for anyone to be in the position you're in, when just describing it is
hilarious?
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:14:26 +1100, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
how many times has this question been asked and answered here, just so
they can say it's not evidence. sheesh!
What can they think they gain by repeating that lie when we've not only told
them we're aware that it's a lie, but we've proven it enough times that we're
tired of proving it? Could they possibly think it will eventually stop being a
lie if they lie about it enough times?
Post by felix_unger
Post by m***@.not.
Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?
I'd also invite you to let us know what evidence you think there should be if
God exists, but by now we've learned that you haven't got the slightest clue
about that. You seem to think some should exist for some reason you can't
explain, yet you have no clue what it should be, where it should be, or why it
should be available to humans at all. Can you not appreciate how idiotic it is
for anyone to be in the position you're in, when just describing it is
hilarious?
felix_unger
2014-11-04 05:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Sylvia Else
2014-11-04 08:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?
Yes, I've heard of him. He appears to have been someone who lived about
two thousand years ago, and was killed by the Romans. Some decades
afterwards, some stuff was written about him, and in those writings,
some improbable events are described.

As evidence of God, it's a bit thin, particularly when we take into
account that the world has always been full of people deceiving others
for their own ends, making up stories, and generally have poor memories.

Used cars get sold with better documentation than that.

Sylvia.
felix_unger
2014-11-04 10:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?
Yes, I've heard of him. He appears to have been someone who lived
about two thousand years ago, and was killed by the Romans. Some
decades afterwards, some stuff was written about him, and in those
writings, some improbable events are described.
As evidence of God, it's a bit thin,
but it is evidence nevertheless. just as all that is written about him
is, and the testimony of believers, and the reported miracles, etc.,
it's ALL evidence
Post by Sylvia Else
particularly when we take into account that the world has always been
full of people deceiving others for their own ends, making up stories,
and generally have poor memories.
that relates to the value or worth of the evidence which is a different
matter to the existence of the evidence itself
Post by Sylvia Else
Used cars get sold with better documentation than that.
they didn't have cars in those days
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Sylvia Else
2014-11-04 10:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?
Yes, I've heard of him. He appears to have been someone who lived
about two thousand years ago, and was killed by the Romans. Some
decades afterwards, some stuff was written about him, and in those
writings, some improbable events are described.
As evidence of God, it's a bit thin,
but it is evidence nevertheless. just as all that is written about him
is, and the testimony of believers, and the reported miracles, etc.,
it's ALL evidence
My claim herein to be worth $Three billion is evidence of my huge
wealth. But it's not very good evidence. Indeed, its value is as near to
zero as it gets. In everyday language, people would be justified in
saying that it's not evidence at all.

So, if you want, we can split hairs on exactly what is meant by
"evidence", but for practical purposes, the writings, testimony of
believers, and reported miracles, are of so little evidentiary value as
not to count as evidence at all.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
particularly when we take into account that the world has always been
full of people deceiving others for their own ends, making up stories,
and generally have poor memories.
that relates to the value or worth of the evidence which is a different
matter to the existence of the evidence itself
Post by Sylvia Else
Used cars get sold with better documentation than that.
they didn't have cars in those days
If they had had, they'd have got better documentation with them.

Sylvia.
felix_unger
2014-11-04 10:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?
Yes, I've heard of him. He appears to have been someone who lived
about two thousand years ago, and was killed by the Romans. Some
decades afterwards, some stuff was written about him, and in those
writings, some improbable events are described.
As evidence of God, it's a bit thin,
but it is evidence nevertheless. just as all that is written about him
is, and the testimony of believers, and the reported miracles, etc.,
it's ALL evidence
My claim herein to be worth $Three billion is evidence of my huge
wealth. But it's not very good evidence. Indeed, its value is as near
to zero as it gets. In everyday language, people would be justified in
saying that it's not evidence at all.
So, if you want, we can split hairs on exactly what is meant by
"evidence", but for practical purposes, the writings, testimony of
believers, and reported miracles, are of so little evidentiary value
as not to count as evidence at all.
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
particularly when we take into account that the world has always been
full of people deceiving others for their own ends, making up stories,
and generally have poor memories.
that relates to the value or worth of the evidence which is a different
matter to the existence of the evidence itself
Post by Sylvia Else
Used cars get sold with better documentation than that.
they didn't have cars in those days
If they had had, they'd have got better documentation with them.
Sylvia.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Sylvia Else
2014-11-04 11:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence of
the correctness of their belief.

Sylvia.
felix_unger
2014-11-04 12:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
August Rode
2014-11-04 13:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Malte Runz
2014-11-04 21:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by August Rode
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Santa? Phew! Kids' stuff. No, my good man, let's see if you can 'out-absurd'
me. I gave him the stories about Dog Heads, and yup: The stories are
evidence for the existence of Dog Heads. People wouldn't believe in
something if there was no evidence, would they!
Your turn (FYI Nessie, Potter and UFO's have all been done):
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-04 21:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they
have
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the
existence of
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed
in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Santa? Phew! Kids' stuff. No, my good man, let's see if you can 'out-absurd'
me. I gave him the stories about Dog Heads, and yup: The stories are
evidence for the existence of Dog Heads. People wouldn't believe in
something if there was no evidence, would they!
ppl believe because of the evidence
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's exist,
because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about this?
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-04 22:34:12 UTC
Permalink
"felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen news:***@mid.individual.net...

(snip)
Post by felix_unger
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's exist,
because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about this?
I'll stick to 'the blob in sky in the photo' example. It can be interpreted
as evidence of a million different things. UFO's, dust on the lense, Belgian
helicopter crashing, an eagle. A ghost! If it is possible evidence of
anything, it's not evidence at all. Even if it turns out, by some other
means, that the photo contains the image of a UFO, it still isn't evidence
of the UFO.
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-04 23:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by felix_unger
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's
exist, because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about
this?
I'll stick to 'the blob in sky in the photo' example. It can be
interpreted as evidence of a million different things. UFO's, dust on
the lense, Belgian helicopter crashing, an eagle. A ghost! If it is
possible evidence of anything, it's not evidence at all. Even if it
turns out, by some other means, that the photo contains the image of a
UFO, it still isn't evidence of the UFO.
you're wrong! and a bit crazy!
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-05 00:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by felix_unger
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's exist,
because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about this?
I'll stick to 'the blob in sky in the photo' example. It can be
interpreted as evidence of a million different things. UFO's, dust on
the lense, Belgian helicopter crashing, an eagle. A ghost! If it is
possible evidence of anything, it's not evidence at all. Even if it
turns out, by some other means, that the photo contains the image of a
UFO, it still isn't evidence of the UFO.
you're wrong! ...
Where? About what? That a blob that can be everything, cannot be evidence of
anything?
... and a bit crazy!
And you're answering way too fast. Think it through, at least.
--
Malte Runz
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 23:34:12 +0100, Chicken Runz squawked::
.
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by felix_unger
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's exist,
because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about this?
I'll stick to 'the blob in sky in the photo' example. It can be interpreted
as evidence of a million different things. UFO's, dust on the lense, Belgian
helicopter crashing, an eagle. A ghost! If it is possible evidence of
anything, it's not evidence at all. Even if it turns out, by some other
means, that the photo contains the image of a UFO, it still isn't evidence
of the UFO.
LOL!!! Hilarious!
felix_unger
2014-11-07 00:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by felix_unger
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's exist,
because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about this?
I'll stick to 'the blob in sky in the photo' example. It can be interpreted
as evidence of a million different things. UFO's, dust on the lense, Belgian
helicopter crashing, an eagle. A ghost! If it is possible evidence of
anything, it's not evidence at all. Even if it turns out, by some other
means, that the photo contains the image of a UFO, it still isn't evidence
of the UFO.
LOL!!! Hilarious!
he's showing how ridiculous he is. not an ounce of common sense!
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-07 16:47:06 UTC
Permalink
"felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen news:***@mid.individual.net...

(snip)
Post by felix_unger
he's showing how ridiculous he is. not an ounce of common sense!
Don't forget that you're the one who believes there is evidence of gods. And
of Dog Heads, Nessie, miracles, Big Foot and Alien UFO's (the visible ones
only, though... that's just common sense).
--
Malte Runz
Free Lunch
2014-11-07 23:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by felix_unger
he's showing how ridiculous he is. not an ounce of common sense!
Don't forget that you're the one who believes there is evidence of gods. And
of Dog Heads, Nessie, miracles, Big Foot and Alien UFO's (the visible ones
only, though... that's just common sense).
Felix's middle name appears to be "Credulous".

Malte Runz
2014-11-04 22:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Malte Runz
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they
have
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the
existence of
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed
in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Santa? Phew! Kids' stuff. No, my good man, let's see if you can 'out-absurd'
me. I gave him the stories about Dog Heads, and yup: The stories are
evidence for the existence of Dog Heads. People wouldn't believe in
something if there was no evidence, would they!
ppl believe because of the evidence
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's exist,
because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about this?
Is a photo of an empty sky evidence of the existence of invisible UFO's?
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-04 23:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they
have
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the
existence of
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't >>
evidence
Post by felix_unger
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed
in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Santa? Phew! Kids' stuff. No, my good man, let's see if you can >
'out-absurd'
me. I gave him the stories about Dog Heads, and yup: The stories are
evidence for the existence of Dog Heads. People wouldn't believe in
something if there was no evidence, would they!
ppl believe because of the evidence
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's
exist, because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about
this?
Is a photo of an empty sky evidence of the existence of invisible UFO's?
no. but your posts are evidence that you have no common sense.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-04 23:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they
have
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the
existence of
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't >>
evidence
Post by felix_unger
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed
in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Santa? Phew! Kids' stuff. No, my good man, let's see if you can >
'out-absurd'
me. I gave him the stories about Dog Heads, and yup: The stories are
evidence for the existence of Dog Heads. People wouldn't believe in
something if there was no evidence, would they!
ppl believe because of the evidence
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's exist,
because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about this?
Is a photo of an empty sky evidence of the existence of invisible UFO's?
no. ...
Of course not. Good. I found your limit.
... but your posts are evidence that you have no common sense.
At least I don't believe in invisible gods and ditto UFO's.
--
Malte Runz
felix_unger
2014-11-05 06:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by felix_unger
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they
have
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the
existence of
Post by felix_unger
Post by felix_unger
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't >>
evidence
Post by felix_unger
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed
in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Santa? Phew! Kids' stuff. No, my good man, let's see if you can >
'out-absurd'
me. I gave him the stories about Dog Heads, and yup: The stories
are
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
evidence for the existence of Dog Heads. People wouldn't believe in
something if there was no evidence, would they!
ppl believe because of the evidence
and ppl believe that there may be a Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's
exist,
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
because of the evidence for them. what is so difficult about this?
Is a photo of an empty sky evidence of the existence of invisible
UFO's?
no. ...
Of course not. Good. I found your limit.
Post by felix_unger
... but your posts are evidence that you have no common sense.
At least I don't believe in invisible gods and ditto UFO's
you can choose not to believe in God or UFO's but that won't change what
evidence exists for either
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Malte Runz
2014-11-05 21:14:46 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by felix_unger
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Is a photo of an empty sky evidence of the existence of invisible
UFO's?
no. ...
Of course not. Good. I found your limit.
Post by Malte Runz
... but your posts are evidence that you have no common sense.
At least I don't believe in invisible gods and ditto UFO's
you can choose not to believe in God or UFO's but that won't change what
evidence exists for either
Even if the 'evidence' turns out to be burnt toast, grainy blobs and crooked
fingers anno 1858?
--
Malte Runz
Sylvia Else
2014-11-04 23:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
ppl believe because of the evidence
So, we needn't concern ourselves about the fact that people believe. We
need only look at the evidence that causes them to believe.

What is that evidence?

Sylvia.
felix_unger
2014-11-04 23:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
ppl believe because of the evidence
So, we needn't concern ourselves about the fact that people believe.
We need only look at the evidence that causes them to believe.
What is that evidence?
in regards to what?
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Sylvia Else
2014-11-04 23:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
ppl believe because of the evidence
So, we needn't concern ourselves about the fact that people believe.
We need only look at the evidence that causes them to believe.
What is that evidence?
in regards to what?
You said people believe because of the evidence.

So in regards to whatever it is that the people believe.

Sylvia.
felix_unger
2014-11-05 06:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
ppl believe because of the evidence
So, we needn't concern ourselves about the fact that people believe.
We need only look at the evidence that causes them to believe.
What is that evidence?
in regards to what?
You said people believe because of the evidence.
So in regards to whatever it is that the people believe.
I'm not sure what you're on about. ppl believe what they do for a
reason. the reason for any belief will vary according to the basis for it.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Sylvia Else
2014-11-05 07:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
ppl believe because of the evidence
So, we needn't concern ourselves about the fact that people believe.
We need only look at the evidence that causes them to believe.
What is that evidence?
in regards to what?
You said people believe because of the evidence.
So in regards to whatever it is that the people believe.
I'm not sure what you're on about. ppl believe what they do for a
reason. the reason for any belief will vary according to the basis for it.
The reason most people believe in God is that their parents told them to
when they had no intellectual defence. I was fortunate not to suffer
that kind of child abuse.

Sylvia.
felix_unger
2014-11-06 00:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
ppl believe because of the evidence
So, we needn't concern ourselves about the fact that people believe.
We need only look at the evidence that causes them to believe.
What is that evidence?
in regards to what?
You said people believe because of the evidence.
So in regards to whatever it is that the people believe.
I'm not sure what you're on about. ppl believe what they do for a
reason. the reason for any belief will vary according to the basis for it.
The reason most people believe in God is that their parents told them
to when they had no intellectual defence. I was fortunate not to
suffer that kind of child abuse.
and so it would follow then that the reason most people don't believe in
God is that their parents told them not to when they had no intellectual
defence. IOW atheists raise atheists and religious parents indoctrinate
their children with their beliefs. but a strange thing about children..
they grow up to be adults who can think for themselves and make their
own decisions about what to believe or not. and of course many children
are not influenced about theism either way by responsible parents, such
as mine were, and adults make choices about what they believe regardless
of childhood influences, or lack thereof.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:48:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 11:09:41 +1100, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
ppl believe because of the evidence
So, we needn't concern ourselves about the fact that people believe.
We need only look at the evidence that causes them to believe.
What is that evidence?
in regards to what?
You said people believe because of the evidence.
So in regards to whatever it is that the people believe.
I'm not sure what you're on about. ppl believe what they do for a
reason. the reason for any belief will vary according to the basis for it.
The reason most people believe in God is that their parents told them
to when they had no intellectual defence. I was fortunate not to
suffer that kind of child abuse.
and so it would follow then that the reason most people don't believe in
God is that their parents told them not to when they had no intellectual
defence. IOW atheists raise atheists and religious parents indoctrinate
their children with their beliefs. but a strange thing about children..
they grow up to be adults who can think for themselves and make their
own decisions about what to believe or not. and of course many children
are not influenced about theism either way by responsible parents, such
as mine were, and adults make choices about what they believe regardless
of childhood influences, or lack thereof.
There's also the aspect of the lying necessary to insist there is no
evidence. The fact is that ALL evidence suggests God does exist since there's NO
EVIDENCE he does not. That fact works against what atheists WANT TO believe, and
claim to have put their own faith in even as they deny their faith. So the
situation is that all evidence says God does exist yet atheists deny there is
any, and atheists claim to believe what they say meaning they claim to have
faith in their own belief while at the same time denying their own faith. On top
of all that stupidity their demand for evidence PROVES they think there should
be some proof of God's existence if he does exist yet they have not the
slightest clue what they think it should be, where it should be or why it should
be there. They are truly like morons in regards to this topic, yet they like to
think of themselves as authorities and feel that their abosute cluelessness is
somehow intelligent. As is often the case, just describing the position they're
in is hilarious.
Uergil
2014-11-06 18:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
There's also the aspect of the lying necessary to insist there is no
evidence. The fact is that ALL evidence suggests God does exist since there's
NO EVIDENCE he does not.
There is no more objective evidence for your notion of godly existence
than there is against the notions of existence of the many incompatible
gods claimed by many other religions.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 22:05:51 +0100, Chicken Runz squawked:
.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by August Rode
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Santa? Phew! Kids' stuff. No, my good man, let's see if you can 'out-absurd'
me. I gave him the stories about Dog Heads, and yup: The stories are
evidence for the existence of Dog Heads. People wouldn't believe in
something if there was no evidence, would they!
They may or may not have existed. I explained to you why they might have
existed Chicken, along with other explanations about possible xt beings and
reasons for some of their behavior. You were too scared to look at it, but that
didn't prevent me from explaining for anyone who might not be as much a coward
as you are. I pointed out that if there are beings capable of traveling from one
star system to another they are most likely capable of absorbing, reflecting or
emitting electromagnetic radiation of many if not all wavelengths in pretty much
any ways they want to. If so that would explain why humans don't detect them
with radar unless they want to be detected. It also explains why we don't see
them unless they want us to see them, so any actual sightings would be because
they displayed themselves deliberately, for whatever reason(s) they have for
revealing themselves to people on Earth. The same sort of thing could be true of
the dog heads if they did exist. Anything I've heard about them has said they
were not from this planet. There's no reason to think xt beings could not have
produced such creatures, imo most likely as a sort of biological drone or
something, in order to reveal their existence to humans for whatever reason(s).
The reason for choosing that sort of form would be because it would be strong
evidence of beings from somewhere other than Earth, but using a familiar
friendly sort of form so as not to be overly terrifying to humans.
felix_unger
2014-11-07 08:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Malte Runz
Post by August Rode
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
Santa? Phew! Kids' stuff. No, my good man, let's see if you can 'out-absurd'
me. I gave him the stories about Dog Heads, and yup: The stories are
evidence for the existence of Dog Heads. People wouldn't believe in
something if there was no evidence, would they!
They may or may not have existed. I explained to you why they might have
existed Chicken, along with other explanations about possible xt beings and
reasons for some of their behavior. You were too scared to look at it, but that
didn't prevent me from explaining for anyone who might not be as much a coward
as you are. I pointed out that if there are beings capable of traveling from one
star system to another they are most likely capable of absorbing, reflecting or
emitting electromagnetic radiation of many if not all wavelengths in pretty much
any ways they want to. If so that would explain why humans don't detect them
with radar unless they want to be detected. It also explains why we don't see
them unless they want us to see them, so any actual sightings would be because
they displayed themselves deliberately, for whatever reason(s) they have for
revealing themselves to people on Earth. The same sort of thing could be true of
the dog heads if they did exist. Anything I've heard about them has said they
were not from this planet. There's no reason to think xt beings could not have
produced such creatures, imo most likely as a sort of biological drone or
something, in order to reveal their existence to humans for whatever reason(s).
The reason for choosing that sort of form would be because it would be strong
evidence of beings from somewhere other than Earth, but using a familiar
friendly sort of form so as not to be overly terrifying to humans.
be careful! he'll possibly have a stroke trying to cope with all of
that, lol!
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
felix_unger
2014-11-04 21:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by August Rode
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
you ppl become unstuck because you simply don't use common sense.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:06:58 -0500, August Rode <***@gmail.com> wrote:
.
Post by August Rode
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
The children believe in Santa because of the evidence their presented with.
That's a starting line. Can you get as "far" as the starting line with that one,
or can't you even get that "far"?
felix_unger
2014-11-07 08:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by August Rode
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Do you accept that as
evidence that Santa exists?
The children believe in Santa because of the evidence their presented with.
That's a starting line. Can you get as "far" as the starting line with that one,
or can't you even get that "far"?
exactly right
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Bob Casanova
2014-11-04 14:04:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:28:38 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
As both you and I have noted, your definition of evidence
isn't what is meant by evidence to someone who's interested
in whether that evidence has a basis in fact. And as has
also been noted, the evidence for the existence of Santa is
of exactly the same quality as the evidence for the
existence of deities. *Any* deities.

As Sylvia noted, and has been noted many times in the past,
belief without corroborating objective evidence is evidence
of only belief.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:48:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 07:04:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <***@buzz.off> wrote:
.
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:28:38 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
As both you and I have noted, your definition of evidence
isn't what is meant by evidence to someone who's interested
in whether that evidence has a basis in fact. And as has
also been noted, the evidence for the existence of Santa is
of exactly the same quality as the evidence for the
existence of deities. *Any* deities.
The evidence for Santa is that gifts saying from Santa appear in the house,
and people how are trusted explain that Santa brought them. Weeks or months
before they appear people are told by other people they trust that Santa will
come and bring them, then they appear. Other people also explain the same thing
and have the same experience of gifts being left, with ALL EVIDENCE saying it
was Santa who left them. Other people know better than those they lie to but
still ALL EVIDENCE points to Santa's existence. I don't believe any of you are
honestly so extremely stupid you're not aware of that, but if you truly are then
this entire topic is just so far over your head that you'll never be more than
an idiot in regards to it. Even if you're not too stupid to understand what I
pointed out for you but you're dishonestly pretending to be this topic might
still be beyond you.

Even though none of you can comprehend the distinctions I'm about to point
out for you, they still very much do exist and are very significant. People who
learn the truth about the evidence for Santa learn about the lie, and in fact
delibarately promote and support the lie. In HUGE contrast to that situation, NO
ONE knows God does not exist. NO ONE know there is no God associated with Earth.
None of you atheists have any way of finding out if there is not. All you have
is faith in your own chosen belief being correct and belief without
corroborating objective evidence is evidence of only belief.
Post by Bob Casanova
As Sylvia noted, and has been noted many times in the past,
belief without corroborating objective evidence is evidence
of only belief.
felix_unger
2014-11-07 08:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:28:38 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
not when there are literally billions of people who consider they have
good reason(s) to believe. only ppl who want to deny the existence of
God try to claim that no evidence of God exists.
That they believe is only evidence of their belief. It isn't evidence
of the correctness of their belief.
belief isn't evidence of belief. it's evidence for what is believed in.
As both you and I have noted, your definition of evidence
isn't what is meant by evidence to someone who's interested
in whether that evidence has a basis in fact. And as has
also been noted, the evidence for the existence of Santa is
of exactly the same quality as the evidence for the
existence of deities. *Any* deities.
The evidence for Santa is that gifts saying from Santa appear in the house,
and people how are trusted explain that Santa brought them. Weeks or months
before they appear people are told by other people they trust that Santa will
come and bring them, then they appear. Other people also explain the same thing
and have the same experience of gifts being left, with ALL EVIDENCE saying it
was Santa who left them. Other people know better than those they lie to but
still ALL EVIDENCE points to Santa's existence. I don't believe any of you are
honestly so extremely stupid you're not aware of that, but if you truly are then
this entire topic is just so far over your head that you'll never be more than
an idiot in regards to it. Even if you're not too stupid to understand what I
pointed out for you but you're dishonestly pretending to be this topic might
still be beyond you.
Even though none of you can comprehend the distinctions I'm about to point
out for you, they still very much do exist and are very significant. People who
learn the truth about the evidence for Santa learn about the lie, and in fact
delibarately promote and support the lie. In HUGE contrast to that situation, NO
ONE knows God does not exist. NO ONE know there is no God associated with Earth.
None of you atheists have any way of finding out if there is not. All you have
is faith in your own chosen belief being correct and belief without
corroborating objective evidence is evidence of only belief.
you explain it very well, and besides, the 'evidence' for God can be
investigated by "someone who's interested
in whether that evidence has a basis in fact" to determine if it has, so
he is wrong about that too
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Bob Casanova
As Sylvia noted, and has been noted many times in the past,
belief without corroborating objective evidence is evidence
of only belief.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
m***@.not.
2014-11-06 18:47:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:50:57 +1100, Sylvia Else <***@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?
Yes, I've heard of him. He appears to have been someone who lived
about two thousand years ago, and was killed by the Romans. Some
decades afterwards, some stuff was written about him, and in those
writings, some improbable events are described.
As evidence of God, it's a bit thin,
but it is evidence nevertheless. just as all that is written about him
is, and the testimony of believers, and the reported miracles, etc.,
it's ALL evidence
My claim herein to be worth $Three billion is evidence of my huge
wealth. But it's not very good evidence. Indeed, its value is as near to
zero as it gets. In everyday language, people would be justified in
saying that it's not evidence at all.
So, if you want, we can split hairs on exactly what is meant by
"evidence", but for practical purposes, the writings, testimony of
believers, and reported miracles, are of so little evidentiary value as
not to count as evidence at all.
That's a lie.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
particularly when we take into account that the world has always been
full of people deceiving others for their own ends, making up stories,
and generally have poor memories.
that relates to the value or worth of the evidence which is a different
matter to the existence of the evidence itself
Post by Sylvia Else
Used cars get sold with better documentation than that.
they didn't have cars in those days
If they had had, they'd have got better documentation with them.
No one including you can imagine what sort of "evidence" you think there
"should be" if there is a God associated with Earth. That's because there's no
reason there should be any of the sort of proof you demand. Possibly in a
subconscious part of your tiny mind you're aware of the truth that I keep
clearly pointing out for you or you wouldn't be ashamed to refer to the proof
you demand as proof. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be any reason why you
should be ashamed of it and you'd just refer to it as proof, and you also
wouldn't be ashamed of the distinction between evidence which we have and the
proof which we do not. But as I pointed out you ARE ashamed....LOL....and are no
doubt ashamed of your shame...LOL...
felix_unger
2014-11-07 08:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
..
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented
with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?
Yes, I've heard of him. He appears to have been someone who lived
about two thousand years ago, and was killed by the Romans. Some
decades afterwards, some stuff was written about him, and in those
writings, some improbable events are described.
As evidence of God, it's a bit thin,
but it is evidence nevertheless. just as all that is written about him
is, and the testimony of believers, and the reported miracles, etc.,
it's ALL evidence
My claim herein to be worth $Three billion is evidence of my huge
wealth. But it's not very good evidence. Indeed, its value is as near to
zero as it gets. In everyday language, people would be justified in
saying that it's not evidence at all.
So, if you want, we can split hairs on exactly what is meant by
"evidence", but for practical purposes, the writings, testimony of
believers, and reported miracles, are of so little evidentiary value as
not to count as evidence at all.
That's a lie.
It certainly is. but it's what they want to believe
Post by m***@.not.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by felix_unger
Post by Sylvia Else
particularly when we take into account that the world has always been
full of people deceiving others for their own ends, making up stories,
and generally have poor memories.
that relates to the value or worth of the evidence which is a different
matter to the existence of the evidence itself
Post by Sylvia Else
Used cars get sold with better documentation than that.
they didn't have cars in those days
If they had had, they'd have got better documentation with them.
No one including you can imagine what sort of "evidence" you think there
"should be" if there is a God associated with Earth. That's because there's no
reason there should be any of the sort of proof you demand. Possibly in a
subconscious part of your tiny mind you're aware of the truth that I keep
clearly pointing out for you or you wouldn't be ashamed to refer to the proof
you demand as proof. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be any reason why you
should be ashamed of it and you'd just refer to it as proof, and you also
wouldn't be ashamed of the distinction between evidence which we have and the
proof which we do not. But as I pointed out you ARE ashamed....LOL....and are no
doubt ashamed of your shame...LOL...
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
Andrew
2014-11-04 07:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Sylvia.
The entire Creation itself in all of its dimensions is
indisputable and overwhelming evidence, except to
those who for personal and philosophical reasons
are willingly blind to the evidence that is evident to
all.
Sylvia Else
2014-11-04 08:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by T***@tcher
For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's existence,
when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with evidence
of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,
Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?
Sylvia.
The entire Creation itself in all of its dimensions is
indisputable and overwhelming evidence,except to
those who for personal and philosophical reasons
are willingly blind to the evidence that is evident to
all.
You seem to be assuming that there was a Creation.

Sylvia.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...