What if atheists could somehow be prevented from lying?

Would they be able to post at all?

Olrik

2014-09-11 03:14:54 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

m***@.not.

2014-09-13 15:57:49 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:14:54 -0400, Olrik <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in. So that's the most blatant of all. Probably the next most
blatant is to lie that no one has told any of you what evidence there is. Even
after having it pointed out for you you people often lie that none have ever
been presented. You might like to say that's all just one lie, but it's two
different lies. The first lie is a lie about the condition of this planet we
live on, lying that there's no evidence of God anywhere on it. The second is a
lie about the people who post here, lying that they haven't done what they have
done. Then there are those of you who lie that you know God doesn't exist, when
it's obvious that no one could know that even if it's true. Then there are those
who lie that they've provided proof that God doesn't exist, which again is
something that can't be done. Another common lie is for someone who has made it
clear they believe God does not exist, to lie that they have no belief. Then
there are those who lie that we don't understand the difference between having
no belief, and believing God doesn't exist. Those are some of the lies.

Olrik

2014-09-14 05:01:38 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

You abuse the English language.

Redeem yourself by providing evidence of that «god» you talk about.

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

m***@.not.

2014-09-18 21:21:59 UTC

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 01:01:38 -0400, Olrik <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

You abuse the English language.
Redeem yourself by providing evidence of that «god» you talk about.

Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you
think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him
to provide us with it if he exists.

Olrik

2014-09-19 03:56:52 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

You abuse the English language.
Redeem yourself by providing evidence of that «god» you talk about.

Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you
think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him
to provide us with it if he exists.

Nobody dies anymore. Or amputees grow new limbs. Those would be
miracles, wouldn't they?

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

m***@.not.

2014-09-25 22:35:32 UTC

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:56:52 -0400, Olrik <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

You abuse the English language.
Redeem yourself by providing evidence of that «god» you talk about.

Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you
think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him
to provide us with it if he exists.

Nobody dies anymore. Or amputees grow new limbs. Those would be
miracles, wouldn't they?

For all we know life is a miracle but you can't get as "far as" that basic
starting line, so what makes you think you could get to one of them if humans
regrew lost limbs?

felix_unger

2014-09-15 05:37:40 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

yep. I've observed all that also

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
election results explained: Loading Image...

“People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”

Sylvia Else

2014-09-15 09:54:14 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

Sylvia.

felix_unger

2014-09-16 03:04:32 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

Post by Sylvia Else
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.
Sylvia.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg
“People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”

Olrik

2014-09-16 04:07:19 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

Post by Sylvia Else
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.
Sylvia.

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

felix_unger

2014-09-16 07:52:22 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

no, just the normal one..

http://ausnet.info/evidence

Post by Sylvia Else
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.
Sylvia.

grabber

2014-09-16 20:24:40 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

no, just the normal one..
http://ausnet.info/evidence

There are lots of different meanings there: which are you using today?
Why do you find it so hard to understand that someone else might be
using one of the others?

Have you looked at http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

Post by Sylvia Else
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.
Sylvia.

felix_unger

2014-09-17 05:32:17 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

no, just the normal one..
http://ausnet.info/evidence

exactly

Post by grabber
which are you using today?

the same as always.. any and all as appropriate

Post by grabber
Why do you find it so hard to understand that someone else might be
using one of the others?

I DON'T have that problem. that is simply what some ppl apparently
imagine I do have. If someone were to say (for example) that they will
not believe that Jesus was a real person without absolute proof, I would
have absolutely no problem with that. but there are plenty of others who
are happy to believe without absolute proof, and they have just as much
right to that belief as others do to their non-belief.

Post by grabber
Have you looked at http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

no , but I will now.

grabber

2014-09-27 19:53:06 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

no, just the normal one..
http://ausnet.info/evidence

exactly

Post by grabber
which are you using today?

the same as always.. any and all as appropriate

Impossible! Neither "any" nor "all" is ever appropriate: the appropriate
sense is the exact one which is called for in the context of the
discussion at hand.

Post by grabber
Why do you find it so hard to understand that someone else might be
using one of the others?

I DON'T have that problem.

But you very clearly do, and you wilfully persist in having that
problem, despite having had it pointed out and explained to you ad nauseam.

Post by felix_unger
(felix) so there's NO evidence for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster,
UFO's, etc., etc., ...

(Malte) That's right. There isn't.

(felix) wrong
http://ausnet.info/evidence

Now I don't think there's a disagreement between you and Malte about
what's claimed in terms of sightings, footprints, accounts of alleged
abduction and the rest of it. Even if there is, that's clearly not what
you're interested in arguing about.

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you and Malte about
whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. And if there is, that's clearly not what you're
interested in arguing about, either.

All you're interested in arguing about is whether that stuff meets your
particular chosen sense of the word "evidence". In fact, you're not even
achieving that level of sophistication, because you aren't even
acknowledging the need to make a choice, nor the fact that someone else
may have chosen differently than you.

Post by felix_unger
that is simply what some ppl apparently
imagine I do have. If someone were to say (for example) that they will
not believe that Jesus was a real person without absolute proof, I would
have absolutely no problem with that. but there are plenty of others who
are happy to believe without absolute proof, and they have just as much
right to that belief as others do to their non-belief.

Post by grabber
Have you looked at http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

no , but I will now.

Evidently not.

Malte Runz

2014-09-28 10:23:27 UTC

"grabber" skrev i meddelelsen news:CAEVv.595807$***@fx01.am4...

(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement. f_u regards any and every kind of
hearsay as evidence: 'I was abducted and probed!!!' is evidence for UFO's
having visited Earth. 'Millions of people believe in God and there is this
book...' is also valid evidence for the existence of God. In my book none of
that is evidence.

... And if there is, that's clearly not what you're interested in arguing
about, either.
All you're interested in arguing about is whether that stuff meets your
particular chosen sense of the word "evidence". ...

I agree, and I ask myself why he is willing to accept that hearsay about
Dog-Heads is valid, sensible and reliable evidence for their existence.

I know that 'common sense' very commonly doesn't make any sense, but you
have to use your brains once in a while and discard the most obvious
nonsense. Hearsay, ancient books and biased witnesses' testimony is not
reliable and should never be regarded as useful evidence.

(snip)

--
Malte Runz

grabber

2014-09-28 18:29:36 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge disagreement"
about the definition of "evidence".

Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie? I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does (nor
that he doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about that, or
indeed anything that would be a move away from his favourite activity of
disputing the definition of "evidence".

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in which
he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate grounds for
believing something, then you might actually get somewhere. But I
predict that you will never be able to get him to discuss this.

Post by Malte Runz
'I was abducted and probed!!!' is evidence for UFO's
having visited Earth. 'Millions of people believe in God and there is this
book...' is also valid evidence for the existence of God. In my book
none of that is evidence.

I agree, and I ask myself why he is willing to accept that hearsay about
Dog-Heads is valid, sensible and reliable evidence for their existence.
I know that 'common sense' very commonly doesn't make any sense, but you
have to use your brains once in a while and discard the most obvious
nonsense. Hearsay, ancient books and biased witnesses' testimony is not
reliable and should never be regarded as useful evidence.
(snip)

m***@.not.

2014-09-29 01:04:30 UTC

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:29:36 +0100, grabber <***@bb.er> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge disagreement"
about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie? I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does (nor
that he doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about that, or
indeed anything that would be a move away from his favourite activity of
disputing the definition of "evidence".

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Here's a challenge that has defeated every atheist who has been presented
with it so far. See if you can be the first to give a respectable reply to it:

Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you
think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him
to provide us with it if he exists.

Mitchell Holman

2014-09-29 02:13:21 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger]
and Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in
believing in Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie? I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does (nor
that he doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about that, or
indeed anything that would be a move away from his favourite activity
of disputing the definition of "evidence".

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

Here's a challenge that has defeated every atheist who has been presented
Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you
think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's
benefit for him to provide us with it if he exists.

Change the term "God's" to "Santa's" and you might
see how silly your question is.

m***@.not.

2014-10-02 22:26:54 UTC

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:13:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger]
and Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in
believing in Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie? I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does (nor
that he doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about that, or
indeed anything that would be a move away from his favourite activity
of disputing the definition of "evidence".

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

Change the term "God's" to "Santa's" and you might
see how silly your question is.

The fact that atheists don't have any idea how to attempt to meet the
challenge shows how "silly" their demand is. Not a single on of you has any idea
at all what evidence you think should be where or why you think it should be
there if God exists. One thing we know for a fact to consider along with the
absolute clueless position of atheists, is the fact that if God does exist he
doesn't want to provide us with proof of his existence yet if he ever will. So
we see the "sillyness" is pretty much down to the level of idiocy for atheists
to demand evidence of God, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that they have no
idea what they think they're trying to talk about.

Mitchell Holman

2014-10-03 02:23:32 UTC

wrote: .

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by grabber
And I don't think there's a disagreement between you
[felix_unger] and Malte about whether that material represents
good grounds in believing in Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing
in Nessie? I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does
(nor that he doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about
that, or indeed anything that would be a move away from his
favourite activity of disputing the definition of "evidence".

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

Change the term "God's" to "Santa's" and you might
see how silly your question is.

The fact that atheists don't have any idea how to attempt to meet the
challenge shows how "silly" their demand is.

What "challenge"?

Not a single on of you
has any idea at all what evidence you think should be where or why you
think it should be there if God exists. One thing we know for a fact
to consider along with the absolute clueless position of atheists, is
the fact that if God does exist he doesn't want to provide us with
proof of his existence yet if he ever will.

Every stance you take to excuse "proof of
his existence" applies to every deity in every
religion that ever existed. What makes your faith
any different than theirs?

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:44:33 UTC

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:23:32 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.

wrote: .

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by grabber
And I don't think there's a disagreement between you
[felix_unger] and Malte about whether that material represents
good grounds in believing in Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing
in Nessie? I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does
(nor that he doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about
that, or indeed anything that would be a move away from his
favourite activity of disputing the definition of "evidence".

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

Change the term "God's" to "Santa's" and you might
see how silly your question is.

The fact that atheists don't have any idea how to attempt to meet the
challenge shows how "silly" their demand is.

What "challenge"?

The one that defeats every one of you, including you, to the point that not
one of you is able to even attempt to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think
there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should
be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he exists. No one has
given a respectable answer anyway. Some have suggested that God should grant
every request anyone makes to him, which is childlike and worthy of no respect
at all. Some have suggested that he should re-grow the limbs of amputees which
is in no way superior to saying he should grant every other request as well. One
person amusingly suggested he should make a "video tape", and also that he
should leave his "footprints in the snow". Both of those are so absurd maybe
even some atheists could figure out why. So the "challenge" STILL defeats every
one of you to try to explain what you think you think you're trying to talk
about, which is disappointing because I'm very curious what the explanation
could possibly be. BUT! We have been clearly shown that there is no explanation,
and not one of you has any idea what evidence you think should be where, or why
it should be there.

Every stance you take to excuse "proof of
his existence" applies to every deity in every
religion that ever existed. What makes your faith
any different than theirs?

I don't have faith that there IS a God associated with Earth. If there is I
have faith that he has his own reasons for not providing the proof you people
are so obsessed over. I have faith that people have had different beliefs about
him and have referred to him in different ways. I have faith that there are
things wrong with all religious faiths and none are entirely correct. I have
faith that he is an "alien" and is technologically advanced far beyond what
humans on Earth are. Whether that's "any different than theirs" or not doesn't
matter to me. It's the position I'm in at this point in my life, and so far no
one has given me reason to put faith in the one possibility that there is no God
associated with Earth, so I continue to consider how their could be.

felix_unger

2014-09-29 01:28:50 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in
believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

Post by grabber
I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does (nor that he
doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about that, or indeed
anything that would be a move away from his favourite activity of
disputing the definition of "evidence".

I don't dispute the definition of evidence, moron. that is your lie. I
simply use the definitions in common use. the problem lies with those
who want to claim that what is evidence is not evidence, or else apply
only a restrictive definition to the exclusion of all others. the value
or merit of any evidence is another matter.

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' . Also I want to address your other post, but I
don't have time at present. :(

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. Loading Image...

Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
"The only religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the Prophet Muhammad" - Adolf Hitler

grabber

2014-10-01 17:28:14 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists that
purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.

And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether that
material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.

So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and Malte
are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are enjoying
it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this if you see
fit, but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

Post by felix_unger
, moron. that is your lie.

"I use reason and logic, not insults." - felix_unger 23/2/2014. How
should we describe this claim?

Post by felix_unger
I
simply use the definitions in common use. the problem lies with those
who want to claim that what is evidence is not evidence

You mean that what you are calling evidence is not what they call
evidence. What can this be but a dispute over the definition of
"evidence"? The fact that you fondly believe you are right in this
dispute doesn't the change the fact of what the dispute is about.

Post by felix_unger
, or else apply
only a restrictive definition to the exclusion of all others. the value
or merit of any evidence is another matter.

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

Wrong. You don't have to use the word evidence at all.

Allow me to translate:

I think when Malte says

"there is no evidence for god, or Nessie, or Dogheads"

he probably means something like

"there is no verifiable material that gives adequate grounds for belief
in god, or Nessie, or Dogheads"

I am sure that Malte could adjust this wording if it's not quite right.

Now if you were interested in moving on to discuss the merits of that
claim of Malte's, you easily could: you could effortlessly avoid the
problematic word "evidence" by using some such phrasing as the above.

But I don't think you are interested in doing that. I think that you are
solely interesting in arguing about a definition. You started an entire
thread not so long ago expressly to do that and nothing else. You
explicitly said "I am not interested in the validity of the evidence."

Post by felix_unger
Also I want to address your other post, but I
don't have time at present. :(

Malte Runz

2014-10-01 22:28:24 UTC

(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current exchange
with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists that purports
to support the existence of, say, Nessie.

We do.

And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether that
material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.

In another post he hints at it, by saying we need to use common sense when
considering the evidence and subject matter. I had to introduce a 'photo of
a spider shaped god' to make get my point across.

So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and Malte
are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are enjoying
it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this if you see fit,
but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

I haven't, but I will.

(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

Spot on. I'll just add that the material, that is presented, does not
qualify as 'evidence', because it does not gives ground for belief.

Now if you were interested in moving on to discuss the merits of that
claim of Malte's, you easily could: you could effortlessly avoid the
problematic word "evidence" by using some such phrasing as the above.

If we broaden the definition enough to let Dog-Heads, sea monsters and gods
slip into the realm of reality, on a semantic technicality, we might as well
move back into the caves and start drawing on the walls.

But I don't think you are interested in doing that. I think that you are
solely interesting in arguing about a definition. You started an entire
thread not so long ago expressly to do that and nothing else. You
explicitly said "I am not interested in the validity of the evidence."

Nicely caught.

Going a bit OT. In Danish we call this 'fly-fucking' (flue-knepperi), being

I think when Malte says
"there is no evidence [...]".

Since I didn't say it verbatim, and because I know the locals, I'd prefer it
if you would use 'single' quotation marks when you paraphrase. I don't know
if it's a recognised way of doing it, though.

--
Malte Runz

m***@.not.

2014-10-02 22:26:45 UTC

On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 00:28:24 +0200, "Malte Runz" <***@forgitit.dk> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current exchange
with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists that purports
to support the existence of, say, Nessie.

We do.

And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether that
material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.

I haven't, but I will.
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

Spot on. I'll just add that the material, that is presented, does not
qualify as 'evidence', because it does not gives ground for belief.

Nicely caught.
Going a bit OT. In Danish we call this 'fly-fucking' (flue-knepperi), being

I think when Malte says
"there is no evidence [...]".

Since I didn't say it verbatim, and because I know the locals, I'd prefer it
if you would use 'single' quotation marks when you paraphrase.

You've made the claim:

"the utter lack of evidence is enough for me to believe that there are no gods.
Anywhere, anywhen." - Malte Runz

"I showed an example of evidence that proves god does not exist." - Malte Runz

whether you've ever used that exact term on not, though I believe you have. Your
second quote is a blatant lie and you can't pretend that it's not, btw. After
trying to back away from your claim like that, some people would say you have
"crawfished".

felix_unger

2014-10-04 02:13:54 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists
that purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.

We do.

Post by grabber
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether
that material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.

In another post he hints at it, by saying we need to use common sense
when considering the evidence and subject matter. I had to introduce a
'photo of a spider shaped god' to make get my point across.

Post by grabber
So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and
Malte are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are
enjoying it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this
if you see fit, but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

I haven't, but I will.
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B'

unless we

Post by felix_unger
first agree about 'A' .

Spot on. I'll just add that the material, that is presented, does not
qualify as 'evidence', because it does not gives ground for belief.

so the biblical stories of Jesus are not 'ground for belief' - despite
the fact the entire Christian religion is based on them?! you're
unbelieveable!

--
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 only religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the Prophet Muhammad" - Adolf Hitler

Malte Runz

2014-10-04 10:48:08 UTC

(snip)

Post by grabber
I think when Malte says
"there is no evidence for god, or Nessie, or Dogheads"
he probably means something like
"there is no verifiable material that gives adequate grounds for belief
in god, or Nessie, or Dogheads"
I am sure that Malte could adjust this wording if it's not quite right.

Spot on. I'll just add that the material, that is presented, does not
qualify as 'evidence', because it does not gives ground for belief.

so the biblical stories of Jesus are not 'ground for belief' - despite the
fact the entire Christian religion is based on them?! ...

Argumentum ad populum.

... you're unbelieveable!

No, I'm an 'unbeliever'.

--
Malte Runz

Free Lunch

2014-10-04 14:23:53 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists
that purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.

We do.

Post by grabber
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether
that material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.

In another post he hints at it, by saying we need to use common sense
when considering the evidence and subject matter. I had to introduce a
'photo of a spider shaped god' to make get my point across.

I haven't, but I will.
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B'

unless we

Post by felix_unger
first agree about 'A' .

Spot on. I'll just add that the material, that is presented, does not
qualify as 'evidence', because it does not gives ground for belief.

so the biblical stories of Jesus are not 'ground for belief' - despite
the fact the entire Christian religion is based on them?! you're
unbelieveable!

Any bets on whether a cult arises aroung the Harry Potter stories?

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:48:00 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists
that purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.

We do.

Post by grabber
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether
that material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.

In another post he hints at it, by saying we need to use common sense
when considering the evidence and subject matter. I had to introduce a
'photo of a spider shaped god' to make get my point across.

I haven't, but I will.
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B'

unless we

Post by felix_unger
first agree about 'A' .

Spot on. I'll just add that the material, that is presented, does not
qualify as 'evidence', because it does not gives ground for belief.

so the biblical stories of Jesus are not 'ground for belief' - despite
the fact the entire Christian religion is based on them?! you're
unbelieveable!

Maybe nothing ever written "gives ground for belief"? Nothing these atheists
write seems to.

grabber

2014-10-04 16:51:43 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists
that purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.

We do.

Post by grabber
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether
that material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.

In another post he hints at it, by saying we need to use common sense
when considering the evidence and subject matter. I had to introduce a
'photo of a spider shaped god' to make get my point across.

Post by grabber
So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and
Malte are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are
enjoying it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this if
you see fit, but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

I haven't, but I will.
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B'

unless we

Post by felix_unger
first agree about 'A' .

Spot on. I'll just add that the material, that is presented, does not
qualify as 'evidence', because it does not gives ground for belief.

If we broaden the definition enough to let Dog-Heads, sea monsters and
gods slip into the realm of reality, on a semantic technicality, we
might as well move back into the caves and start drawing on the walls.

Broadening the definition does not alter the reality-status of any of
those things. It is only a definition. I think felix wants to understand
"evidence" as having a very broad meaning, something like "any form of
testimony or anything that could be construed as an indication". In that
sense, he's right that there is evidence of all of those things.

IMHO the way to respond to that is to say "very well, but if *that* is
what you mean by evidence, then so what? Have you actually got anything
that presents good grounds for belief in any of those things". At which
point he stops being interested.

Post by grabber
But I don't think you are interested in doing that. I think that you
are solely interesting in arguing about a definition. You started an
entire thread not so long ago expressly to do that and nothing else.
You explicitly said "I am not interested in the validity of the
evidence."

Nicely caught.
Going a bit OT. In Danish we call this 'fly-fucking' (flue-knepperi),

Post by grabber
I think when Malte says
"there is no evidence [...]".

Since I didn't say it verbatim, and because I know the locals, I'd
prefer it if you would use 'single' quotation marks when you paraphrase.
I don't know if it's a recognised way of doing it, though.

Apologies, I should have made it clear that it wasn't a direct quote,
you're right.

Malte Runz

2014-10-05 00:20:08 UTC

(snip)

Post by Malte Runz
If we broaden the definition enough to let Dog-Heads, sea monsters and
gods slip into the realm of reality, on a semantic technicality, we
might as well move back into the caves and start drawing on the walls.

Broadening the definition does not alter the reality-status of any of
those things. It is only a definition. ...

Of course, but what I can see happening is that the new age psychics, the
woo doo crowd and the creationist will claim that their 'theories are backed
by evidence, too, just like the Theory of Evolution!!!' A lot of well
meaning, but ignorant, folks will get suckered back into the bullshit,
humanity left in the afore mentioned caves thousands of years ago.

Post by grabber
... I think felix wants to understand "evidence" as having a very broad
meaning, something like "any form of testimony or anything that could be
construed as an indication". In that sense, he's right that there is
evidence of all of those things.

We gain nothing by rendering definitions meaningless, and that's what he is
doing. He ends up having to defend the possible existence of Dog-Heads for
Christ's sake (literally).

Post by grabber
IMHO the way to respond to that is to say "very well, but if *that* is
what you mean by evidence, then so what? Have you actually got anything
that presents good grounds for belief in any of those things". At which
point he stops being interested.

And interesting.

Nicely caught.
Going a bit OT. In Danish we call this 'fly-fucking' (flue-knepperi),

Post by grabber
I think when Malte says
"there is no evidence [...]".

Since I didn't say it verbatim, and because I know the locals, I'd
prefer it if you would use 'single' quotation marks when you paraphrase.
I don't know if it's a recognised way of doing it, though.

Apologies, I should have made it clear that it wasn't a direct quote,
you're right.

No big deal.

--
Malte Runz

felix_unger

2014-10-05 04:15:18 UTC

Post by grabber
... I think felix wants to understand "evidence" as having a very
broad meaning,

just the general meaning

Post by grabber
something like "any form of testimony or anything that could be
construed as an indication". In that sense, he's right that there is
evidence of all of those things.

thank you!

Post by Malte Runz
We gain nothing by rendering definitions meaningless, and that's what
he is doing.

I do nothing of the sort. I simply use the normal definition of
evidence, as I have told you repeatedly, so you should bloodywell know
by now!

Post by Malte Runz
He ends up having to defend the possible existence of Dog-Heads

Lets suppose that we want to discuss the existence of your dogheads.
What are we going to say we will do? will we say.. "Let's discuss the
reports of/about, the sightings of, any testimony about, the writings
about, any documents relating to, the oral tradition about, any known
interactions with, any artifacts of, the habitats of, and anything else
we can think of relating to, the dogheads." of course not! we would
simply say "Let's examine the EVIDENCE for the dogheads" which would
encompass all of that! duh!

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

Malte Runz

2014-10-05 12:23:38 UTC

(snip)

Post by Malte Runz
We gain nothing by rendering definitions meaningless, and that's what he
is doing.

I do nothing of the sort. ...

If a grainy image of an out of focus blob in sky and the testimony of
tormented souls is 'evidence that Aliens have visited Earth' in the same way
that DNA constitutes evidence for evolution, then it is exactly what you are
doing.

... I simply use the normal definition of evidence, as I have told you
repeatedly, so you should bloodywell know by now!

A strange 'footprint' and the bloody carcas of deer in the forrest is not
evidence for Bigfoot. It's evidence of peoples vivid imagination, if nothing
else.

Post by Malte Runz
He ends up having to defend the possible existence of Dog-Heads

Lets suppose that we want to discuss the existence of your dogheads. What
are we going to say we will do? will we say.. "Let's discuss the reports
of/about, the sightings of, any testimony about, the writings about, any
documents relating to, the oral tradition about, any known interactions
with, any artifacts of, the habitats of, and anything else we can think of
relating to, the dogheads." of course not! ...

We should, though, because it would show us that there really isn't any
evidence at all.

... we would simply say "Let's examine the EVIDENCE for the dogheads"
which would encompass all of that! duh!

And we would be wrong. Grainy blobs and smears in the mud can be
/interpreted/ to be evidence of pretty much anything. I see confirmation
bias everywhere!

--
Malte Runz

grabber

2014-10-05 20:09:25 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Broadening the definition does not alter the reality-status of any of
those things. It is only a definition. ...

Of course, but what I can see happening is that the new age psychics,
the woo doo crowd and the creationist will claim that their 'theories
are backed by evidence, too, just like the Theory of Evolution!!!' A lot
of well meaning, but ignorant, folks will get suckered back into the
bullshit, humanity left in the afore mentioned caves thousands of years
ago.

I agree with you, at least to the extent that I think people generally
understand "there is evidence for X" as meaning "there are reasonable
grounds for believing X". For this reason - even if you don't suspect
that impressionable members of the public are following the thread - I
think that it is reasonable to refuse adopt felix's usage. But I don't
think the answer is to get trapped in a cycle of mutual contradiction
about the definition, either. Better just to talk about "good grounds
for belief" instead.

Post by grabber
... I think felix wants to understand "evidence" as having a very
broad meaning, something like "any form of testimony or anything that
could be construed as an indication". In that sense, he's right that
there is evidence of all of those things.

We gain nothing by rendering definitions meaningless, and that's what he
is doing. He ends up having to defend the possible existence of
Dog-Heads for Christ's sake (literally).

I don't think that's right. If he is consistent, then he should accept
that, if we follow his usage, "evidence for Dog-heads" has no strong
relationship to "Dog-heads existed".

Post by grabber
IMHO the way to respond to that is to say "very well, but if *that* is
what you mean by evidence, then so what? Have you actually got
anything that presents good grounds for belief in any of those
things". At which point he stops being interested.

And interesting.

Nicely caught.
Going a bit OT. In Danish we call this 'fly-fucking' (flue-knepperi),
being a stickler. It's about your use of quotation marks when you

Post by grabber
I think when Malte says
"there is no evidence [...]".

Since I didn't say it verbatim, and because I know the locals, I'd
prefer it if you would use 'single' quotation marks when you

paraphrase.

Post by Malte Runz
I don't know if it's a recognised way of doing it, though.

Apologies, I should have made it clear that it wasn't a direct quote,
you're right.

No big deal.

m***@.not.

2014-10-02 22:26:16 UTC

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:28:14 +0100, grabber <***@bb.er> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists that
purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether that
material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.
So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and Malte
are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are enjoying
it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this if you see
fit, but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

Post by felix_unger
, moron. that is your lie.

"I use reason and logic, not insults." - felix_unger 23/2/2014. How
should we describe this claim?

Post by felix_unger
I
simply use the definitions in common use. the problem lies with those
who want to claim that what is evidence is not evidence

Post by felix_unger
, or else apply
only a restrictive definition to the exclusion of all others. the value
or merit of any evidence is another matter.

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

If God does exist at least some of the evidence of his existence is false
evidence. If God does not exist then ALL evidence is false evidence. By claiming
there's no evidence the moron is saying that there's no false evidence, even
though every bit of it might be false and it's pretty much certain that there's
some false evidence. So that narrow, shallow and from my pov horribly dishonest
position could not be much more incorrect.

Post by grabber
Now if you were interested in moving on to discuss the merits of that
claim of Malte's, you easily could: you could effortlessly avoid the
problematic word "evidence" by using some such phrasing as the above.
But I don't think you are interested in doing that. I think that you are
solely interesting in arguing about a definition. You started an entire
thread not so long ago expressly to do that and nothing else. You
explicitly said "I am not interested in the validity of the evidence."

Another significant aspect of the atheist position is the FACT!!! that not a
single one of them has the slightest clue WHAT evidence they think should exist,
WHERE it should exist, or WHY it should be in God's best interest to provide it
if he exists. When I first began challenging atheists to explain what they
imagine I actually believed at least some of them would have some sort of a
clue. But by now we've seen proof that not a single one of them has any idea at
all what they think they're trying to talk about, and can't even pretend they
do. That's a very sad thing to me, because IF they had any idea what they think
should be where and why I'd be interested in learning what they think it is, and
where, and why....

felix_unger

2014-10-04 00:42:32 UTC

Post by felix_unger
I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

well said!

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Obama

Free Lunch

2014-10-04 14:27:51 UTC

Post by felix_unger
I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

If God does exist at least some of the evidence of his existence is false

Why? Is your god intentionally misleading people? What sort of god is
that?

Post by m***@.not.
evidence. If God does not exist then ALL evidence is false evidence. By claiming

But there is no evidence. You know that.

Post by m***@.not.
there's no evidence the moron is saying that there's no false evidence, even
though every bit of it might be false and it's pretty much certain that there's
some false evidence. So that narrow, shallow and from my pov horribly dishonest
position could not be much more incorrect.

well said!

Not remotely. You know that there is no evidence that any gods exist.

felix_unger

2014-10-04 00:06:27 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists
that purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether
that material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.
So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and
Malte are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are
enjoying it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this if
you see fit, but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

, moron. that is your lie.

"I use reason and logic, not insults." - felix_unger 23/2/2014. How
should we describe this claim?

I
simply use the definitions in common use. the problem lies with those
who want to claim that what is evidence is not evidence

, or else apply
only a restrictive definition to the exclusion of all others. the value
or merit of any evidence is another matter.

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

Wrong. You don't have to use the word evidence at all.
I think when Malte says
"there is no evidence for god, or Nessie, or Dogheads"
he probably means something like
"there is no verifiable material that gives adequate grounds for
belief in god, or Nessie, or Dogheads"
I am sure that Malte could adjust this wording if it's not quite right.
Now if you were interested in moving on to discuss the merits of that
claim of Malte's, you easily could: you could effortlessly avoid the
problematic word "evidence" by using some such phrasing as the above.
But I don't think you are interested in doing that. I think that you
are solely interesting in arguing about a definition. You started an
entire thread not so long ago expressly to do that and nothing else.
You explicitly said "I am not interested in the validity of the
evidence."

Also I want to address your other post, but I
don't have time at present. :(

I'm not interested in arguing with you and defending myself point by
point against your criticisms. my contention has always been that there
is evidence for the existence of God (just as there is evidence for
Nessie, UFO's, etc.,) contrary to what (some? many?) atheists claim that
there is NO evidence. that is all I have sought to address. you're right
when you said I am not interested in the validity of the evidence,
because that is another matter. I am not an apologist for the existence
of God. i simply seek to address the bias and irrationality of atheists,
and their lack of objectivity. atheists are wrong when they claim there
is NO evidence for God. it's just plain silly to claim that.

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Obama

grabber

2014-10-04 14:34:18 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists
that purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether
that material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.
So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and
Malte are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are
enjoying it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this if
you see fit, but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

, moron. that is your lie.

"I use reason and logic, not insults." - felix_unger 23/2/2014. How
should we describe this claim?

I
simply use the definitions in common use. the problem lies with those
who want to claim that what is evidence is not evidence

, or else apply
only a restrictive definition to the exclusion of all others. the value
or merit of any evidence is another matter.

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

Also I want to address your other post, but I
don't have time at present. :(

I'm not interested in arguing with you and defending myself point by point

Yes, I'd noticed.

But there is only one point here, which is that only argument you are
making is not concerned with any point of substance, is limited to a
futile dispute over the meaning of a particular word.

If you had any substantive point to make against the sceptical position
that some people here take, then you could easily do so without getting
tripped up by this word, but you yourself admit that you aren't
interested in making any such point.

So what do you imagine you are contributing?

against your criticisms. my contention has always been that there
is evidence for the existence of God (just as there is evidence for
Nessie, UFO's, etc.,) contrary to what (some? many?) atheists claim that
there is NO evidence. that is all I have sought to address. you're right
when you said I am not interested in the validity of the evidence,
because that is another matter. I am not an apologist for the existence
of God. i simply seek to address the bias and irrationality of atheists,
and their lack of objectivity.

But you don't address any such things. You only address the fact that
they use a sense of the word "evidence" that you think they shouldn't.
You aren't even trying to address any substantive point.

atheists are wrong when they claim there
is NO evidence for God. it's just plain silly to claim that.

What do you think they mean by "evidence" when they claim that?

felix_unger

2014-10-05 01:36:26 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for
believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists
that purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether
that material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.
So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and
Malte are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are
enjoying it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this if
you see fit, but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

, moron. that is your lie.

"I use reason and logic, not insults." - felix_unger 23/2/2014. How
should we describe this claim?

I
simply use the definitions in common use. the problem lies with those
who want to claim that what is evidence is not evidence

, or else apply
only a restrictive definition to the exclusion of all others. the value
or merit of any evidence is another matter.

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

Also I want to address your other post, but I
don't have time at present. :(

I'm not interested in arguing with you and defending myself point by point

Yes, I'd noticed.
But there is only one point here, which is that only argument you are
making is not concerned with any point of substance, is limited to a
futile dispute over the meaning of a particular word.
If you had any substantive point to make against the sceptical
position that some people here take, then you could easily do so
without getting tripped up by this word, but you yourself admit that
you aren't interested in making any such point.
So what do you imagine you are contributing?

But you don't address any such things. You only address the fact that
they use a sense of the word "evidence" that you think they shouldn't.
You aren't even trying to address any substantive point.

atheists are wrong when they claim there
is NO evidence for God. it's just plain silly to claim that.

What do you think they mean by "evidence" when they claim that?

they mean proof, and that's why they're wrong

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

Malte Runz

2014-10-05 12:34:45 UTC

(snip)

Post by felix_unger
atheists are wrong when they claim there
is NO evidence for God. it's just plain silly to claim that.

What do you think they mean by "evidence" when they claim that?

they mean proof, and that's why they're wrong

Interesting. From you own link:
http://ausnet.info/evidence

"that which tends to prove or disprove something"
"data on which to base proof"
"to give proof of "
"something that furnishes proof"
"Synonyms [...] proof"
"to offer evidence of : prove ..."

Seems that your own definition's flawed. 'Flayed' might be a more accurate
description.

--
Malte Runz

grabber

2014-10-05 21:03:32 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for
believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

I don't dispute the definition of evidence

Of course you do. It is the sole point at dispute in your current
exchange with Malte. You both know the kind of material that exists
that purports to support the existence of, say, Nessie.
And you have at no point started to debate the question of whether
that material gives good grounds for believing that Nessie is real.
So the only thing in dispute is whether the word "evidence" should be
applied to that material, and that is very clearly because you and
Malte are working with different senses of that word. I hope you are
enjoying it, and you are both entitled to waste your time like this if
you see fit, but it is plainly futile. Have you looked at
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ yet?

, moron. that is your lie.

"I use reason and logic, not insults." - felix_unger 23/2/2014. How
should we describe this claim?

I
simply use the definitions in common use. the problem lies with those
who want to claim that what is evidence is not evidence

, or else apply
only a restrictive definition to the exclusion of all others. the value
or merit of any evidence is another matter.

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

Also I want to address your other post, but I
don't have time at present. :(

I'm not interested in arguing with you and defending myself point by point

Yes, I'd noticed.
But there is only one point here, which is that only argument you are
making is not concerned with any point of substance, is limited to a
futile dispute over the meaning of a particular word.
If you had any substantive point to make against the sceptical
position that some people here take, then you could easily do so
without getting tripped up by this word, but you yourself admit that
you aren't interested in making any such point.
So what do you imagine you are contributing?

That would be "nothing", then.

But you don't address any such things. You only address the fact that
they use a sense of the word "evidence" that you think they shouldn't.
You aren't even trying to address any substantive point.

Seems as if that's settled too.

atheists are wrong when they claim there
is NO evidence for God. it's just plain silly to claim that.

What do you think they mean by "evidence" when they claim that?

they mean proof, and that's why they're wrong

If they did mean "proof" (though I think in fact they mean something
rather less), then they would uncontroversially right - I think even you
accept that we have no proof that god exists.

Free Lunch

2014-10-05 21:37:46 UTC

...

Post by grabber
What do you think they mean by "evidence" when they claim that?

they mean proof, and that's why they're wrong

If they did mean "proof" (though I think in fact they mean something
rather less), then they would uncontroversially right - I think even you
accept that we have no proof that god exists.

Evidence is a fine word. Don't try to mislead. Theists have no evidence
that their god exists or that the god they worship is the correct one,
unlike the many other gods that are worshipped by other theists.

Free Lunch

2014-10-04 14:35:54 UTC

On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:06:27 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:

...

Post by felix_unger
I'm not interested in arguing with you and defending myself point by
point against your criticisms. my contention has always been that there
is evidence for the existence of God (just as there is evidence for

Yes, that is your contention, but when you are invited to show us that
evidence, you make it clear that you have no such evidence and that you
know that there is no evidence that any gods exist, not even the one you
capitalize. Why do you claim there is evidence when it is clear that you
know there is no evidence?

Post by felix_unger
Nessie, UFO's, etc.,) contrary to what (some? many?) atheists claim that
there is NO evidence. that is all I have sought to address. you're right
when you said I am not interested in the validity of the evidence,

So you support the idea of presenting non-evidence at evidence? Why?
What good do fraudulent claims do?

Post by felix_unger
because that is another matter. I am not an apologist for the existence
of God. i simply seek to address the bias and irrationality of atheists,
and their lack of objectivity. atheists are wrong when they claim there
is NO evidence for God. it's just plain silly to claim that.

There is no evidence. This is not an atheist claim, many (I don't know
if it is most) believers acknowledge that their faith is completely
unsupported by evidence. You know you cannot present any evidence. Why
fight reality?

m***@.not.

2014-10-02 22:27:25 UTC

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:28:50 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

They lie that there is no evidence at all to the extent of denying that
there's any false evidence. And they have no idea at all what evidence they
think should be where much less why they think it should be wherever, if God
does exist. So what COULD they discuss???

felix_unger

2014-10-04 00:33:27 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

surprising isn't it how they don't seem to be able to appreciate the
basics such as evidence does not have to be proof, or even something
that leads to proof, evidence can be false evidence, evidence can be
weak or strong evidence, etc., etc., all because they want to deny there
is ANY evidence for God simply to bolster their 'no gods' position.

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Obama

Free Lunch

2014-10-04 14:37:35 UTC

...

Post by m***@.not.
They lie that there is no evidence at all to the extent of denying that
there's any false evidence. And they have no idea at all what evidence they
think should be where much less why they think it should be wherever, if God
does exist. So what COULD they discuss???

No, false claims (or as you confusingly say 'false evidence') are not
evidence. You have made it clear that you know that you have no evidence
that supports the claim that some god or other exists, yet you insist
that there must be evidence for the existence of gods.

felix_unger

2014-10-05 01:41:52 UTC

Post by Free Lunch
....

Is there evidence for..

(a) the Loch Ness Monster

(b) UFO's

(c) Bigfoot/Yeti

please answer 'yes' or 'no' only to each

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

Free Lunch

2014-10-05 14:07:02 UTC

Post by Free Lunch
....

Is there evidence for..
(a) the Loch Ness Monster

No.

Post by felix_unger
(b) UFO's

No.

Post by felix_unger
(c) Bigfoot/Yeti

No.

Post by felix_unger
please answer 'yes' or 'no' only to each

So you don't want informed answers, you want to show us how silly you
can be, by demanding yes or no.

felix_unger

2014-10-05 22:52:12 UTC

Post by Free Lunch

Post by Free Lunch
....

Is there evidence for..
(a) the Loch Ness Monster

No.

Post by felix_unger
(b) UFO's

No.

Post by felix_unger
(c) Bigfoot/Yeti

No.

I rest my case..

Post by Free Lunch

Post by felix_unger
please answer 'yes' or 'no' only to each

So you don't want informed answers, you want to show us how silly you
can be, by demanding yes or no.

by all means give it your best shot

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:57:12 UTC

Post by Free Lunch
...

No, false claims (or as you confusingly say 'false evidence') are not
evidence.

http://is.gd/K1Bmu4

You moron.

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:45:37 UTC

On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:33:27 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

Yes it was a surprise and sometimes I'm still surprised at how stupid they
are, or at least claim to be. I tend to overestimate people and don't want to
believe they're as stupid as they are, or claim to be, and if years ago before I
encountered atheists in these ngs I would have disbelieved they claim to be so
stupid if someone had just told me about it. I would have suspected that the
person didn't understand their position correctly. But in dealing with them
directly they teach us that yes they do claim there's no evidence, yes they do
claim to have no belief even after they've shown that they have one, yes some of
them do try to deny that there are more than one type of atheism, yes many of
them do try to deny that there is more than one type of agnosticism, yes some of
them do claim to know God doesn't exist, yes some of them even claim to have
proof that God doesn't exist, no none of them can appreciate that if God exists
people have varying beliefs about him and refer to him in a variety of different
ways, and no none of them can appreciate the fact that if God does exist he's
not going to provide us with proof of his existence yet, if ever.

felix_unger

2014-10-05 22:52:25 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I believe there's a huge disagreement.

I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
Nessie?

I would need to examine the evidence. :) ..which according to some ppl
doesn't exist of course

Post by Malte Runz
f_u regards any and every kind of

Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
discuss this.

I'm happy to discuss any topic of mutual interest, but there has to be
agreement on the basics first. we can't proceed to discuss 'B' unless we
first agree about 'A' .

and they think they're smart ppl, LOL! and a lot of this can be put down
simply to dishonesty of course.

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

m***@.not.

2014-09-29 01:04:21 UTC

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:23:27 +0200, "Malte Runz" <***@forgitit.dk> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I agree, and I ask myself why he is willing to accept that hearsay about
Dog-Heads is valid, sensible and reliable evidence for their existence.
I know that 'common sense' very commonly doesn't make any sense, but you
have to use your brains once in a while and discard the most obvious
nonsense. Hearsay, ancient books and biased witnesses' testimony is not
reliable and should never be regarded as useful evidence.
(snip)

LOL!!! So people you have never met and don't know a damn thing about say
they were abducted by aliens. To begin with we have no strong reason to
disbelieve them not knowing the people or whether or not aliens ever abduct
anyone. But then YOU say no they were not, and then we're supposed to put faith
in that and consider YOU saying "no" as "evidence" against what they said
happened to them...LOL.........and also feel that it's "common sense" to put all
our faith in YOUR claim...LOL... As usual, just describing you peoples' position
is AGAIN HILARIOUS!!!!

felix_unger

2014-10-04 03:49:04 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I agree, and I ask myself why he is willing to accept that hearsay about
Dog-Heads is valid, sensible and reliable evidence for their existence.
I know that 'common sense' very commonly doesn't make any sense, but you
have to use your brains once in a while and discard the most obvious
nonsense. Hearsay, ancient books and biased witnesses' testimony is not
reliable and should never be regarded as useful evidence.
(snip)

LOL! you make it clear how silly they can be

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:49:22 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in
Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...

I agree, and I ask myself why he is willing to accept that hearsay about
Dog-Heads is valid, sensible and reliable evidence for their existence.
I know that 'common sense' very commonly doesn't make any sense, but you
have to use your brains once in a while and discard the most obvious
nonsense. Hearsay, ancient books and biased witnesses' testimony is not
reliable and should never be regarded as useful evidence.
(snip)

LOL! you make it clear how silly they can be

We should really have a list by now, since so often just describing the
position they ARE IN is very amusing.

m***@.not.

2014-09-18 21:22:23 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

no, just the normal one..
http://ausnet.info/evidence

There are lots of different meanings there: which are you using today?
Why do you find it so hard to understand that someone else might be
using one of the others?

Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you
think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him
to provide us with it if he exists.

BruceS

2014-09-16 19:50:44 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

It pretty much boils down to: "People wouldn't believe it if there were
no evidence. People do believe all sorts of rubbish. Therefore, there
is evidence for said rubbish." The very fact that people are
superstitious is used to support that superstition. If you look around
a bit, you'll see we've been on this little merry-go-round a few times.
So, next time someone asks you for evidence of fire-breathing dragons,
show them some of Anne McCaffrey's work. Advanced life on Mars? Edgar
Rice Burroughs. Santa Claus and his flying reindeer? Just ask any of
the myriad children who believe it. An all-powerful sociopath who likes
to murder children? Check out the Bible. If you're looking for actual
evidence, that would be accepted as such by people who don't base their
lives on fairy dust and wishful thinking, then "the number you have
reached has been disconnected and is no longer in service. If you feel
you have reached this message in error, please try your comment again."

Instead of "no evidence", just remind the True Believers that the
evidence for *their* particular lunatic magic world is no better than
the evidence for any of the other lunatic magic worlds in competition
with theirs. IOW, we accept that Yaweh the Serial Murderer is every bit
as well supported as The Cat in the Hat.

m***@.not.

2014-09-18 21:22:06 UTC

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:50:44 -0600, BruceS <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
.

Post by BruceS

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

It pretty much boils down to: "People wouldn't believe it if there were
no evidence. People do believe all sorts of rubbish. Therefore, there
is evidence for said rubbish."

. . .

Post by BruceS
Instead of "no evidence", just remind the True Believers that the
evidence for *their* particular lunatic magic world

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur
C. Clarke

Post by BruceS
is no better than
the evidence for any of the other lunatic magic worlds in competition
with theirs.

Like what?

Post by BruceS
IOW, we accept that Yaweh the Serial Murderer is every bit
as well supported as The Cat in the Hat.

The Cat in the Hat isn't supported at all. God certainly is. That's one of
those starting lines you people aren't mentally capable of getting as "far" as.

m***@.not.

2014-09-18 21:22:14 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.

no, ppl believe on the basis of what evidence exists, but despite the
absence of proof.

You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you
think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him
to provide us with it if he exists.

Malte Runz

2014-09-20 23:49:26 UTC

"Olrik" skrev i meddelelsen news:lv8d1t$qki$***@dont-email.me...

(snip)

Post by Olrik
You must have a very special definition of «evidence».

Indeed. Hearsay, ancient books, peoples beliefs, tall tales of magical
miracles. It all qualifies as rock solid evidence that must be taken
serious.

--
Malte Runz

m***@.not.

2014-09-18 21:21:40 UTC

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else <***@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.
That's so obvious it seems even an atheist should be able to get that "far", but
as yet I haven't known any to be able to. What if one could? What if one could
explain WHAT type of evidence atheists think there "should be"? WHERE do
atheists think the evidence they beg for "should be"? WHY do atheists think it
"should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with whatever particular
evidence they keep whining about?

Sylvia Else

2014-09-20 08:37:36 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?

Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Sylvia.

m***@.not.

2014-09-25 22:35:39 UTC

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else <***@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

How do you imagine it happened then? Since none of you can explain what sort
of evidence you think there should be, or where it should be, or why it should
be there if God exists, try explaining how the evidence you say doesn't exist
came to be in the first place. Try explaining in detail how you think the books
of the Bible came into existence from the very start, and why they did. Then go
on to explain how the supposed lies were kept going and most importantly how
billions of people were persuaded to believe the supposed lies. Don't just say
some lame copout infantile mindless crap like you did above, but try explaining
IN DETAIL something that's at least some little bit respectable so there
actually is something to consider. We know you people have no clue about what
evidence you think should exist. Let's see if you are any less clueless about
how the evidence you claim doesn't exist actually came to exist.

Mitchell Holman

2014-09-26 01:53:54 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?

What does it matter how many people believe something?

A popular fable (astrology, flat earth, ghosts) is still
a fable.

m***@.not.

2014-09-29 01:04:26 UTC

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:53:54 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?
What does it matter how many people believe something?

Because there has to be reason for them to believe it. That's a starting
line for you to try to get as "far" as. What if you ever could get as far as the
starting line? I wonder....LOL...I have to wonder because none of you have
gotten that "far" yet...LOL... You people are hilarious!!!!

Mitchell Holman

2014-09-29 01:57:20 UTC

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work.
It just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to
believe, and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?
What does it matter how many people believe something?

Because there has to be reason for them to believe it.

Is the earth flat because millions of people
once believe in it?

Is reincarnation real because a billion people
in India beleive in it?

Get back to us when you can prove this bizarre
claim about how many people believe in something
making it true.

m***@.not.

2014-10-02 22:27:33 UTC

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 20:57:20 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them
to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?
What does it matter how many people believe something?

Is the earth flat because millions of people
once believe in it?

Does the Earth not exist because people have had incorrect beliefs about it?

Post by Mitchell Holman
Is reincarnation real because a billion people
in India beleive in it?

Maybe. Maybe not. If you think you found out then explain how you possibly
could have.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Get back to us when you can prove this bizarre
claim about how many people believe in something
making it true.

If God does exist do atheists disbelieving somehow make him cease to exist?
LOL...the very idea is hilarious.

Mitchell Holman

2014-10-03 02:30:31 UTC

wrote: .

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't
work. It just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to
believe, and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?
What does it matter how many people believe something?

Because there has to be reason for them to believe it. That's a starting
line for you to try to get as "far" as. What if you ever could get as
far as the starting line? I wonder....LOL...I have to wonder because
none of you have gotten that "far" yet...LOL... You people are
hilarious!!!!

Is the earth flat because millions of people
once believe in it?

Does the Earth not exist because people have had incorrect beliefs about it?

Evasion noted. Tell us how a popular belief can
be true just because it is popular.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Get back to us when you can prove this bizarre
claim about how many people believe in something
making it true.

If God does exist do atheists disbelieving somehow make him cease to exist?

If Shiva exists do Christians disbelieving in him
make him cease to exist?

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:44:42 UTC

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:30:31 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them
to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?
What does it matter how many people believe something?

Is the earth flat because millions of people
once believe in it?

Evasion noted.

Actually you're the one who evaded what I pointed out for you, and in doing
so you proved me correct that you can't get as "far" as the starting line I
correctly pointed out you can't get as far as.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Tell us how a popular belief can
be true just because it is popular.

That was your evasion since I never said it could. What I pointed out is the
obvious and easy FACT that there has to be reason for them to believe it, and
went on to point out another fact which is that you can't comprehend that fact.
Your reaction was to try to make it appear I said something other than the facts
I pointed out for you, something stupid that I don't believe, and then
tried...LOL...to get me to explain how it could be true. This is another example
where just explaining the atheist's position is hilarious.

Post by m***@.not.
Does the Earth not exist because people have had incorrect beliefs about it?

Post by Mitchell Holman
Is reincarnation real because a billion people
in India beleive in it?

Maybe. Maybe not. If you think you found out then explain how you possibly
could have.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Get back to us when you can prove this bizarre
claim about how many people believe in something
making it true.

If God does exist do atheists disbelieving somehow make him cease to exist?
LOL...the very idea is hilarious.

If Shiva exists do Christians disbelieving in him
make him cease to exist?

Human disbelief has nothing to do with it.

felix_unger

2014-10-04 00:38:07 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them
to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?
What does it matter how many people believe something?

Because there has to be reason for them to believe it.

exactly!

Post by m***@.not.

Post by m***@.not.
That's a starting
line for you to try to get as "far" as. What if you ever could get as far as the
starting line? I wonder....LOL...I have to wonder because none of you have
gotten that "far" yet...LOL... You people are hilarious!!!!

Is the earth flat because millions of people
once believe in it?

Does the Earth not exist because people have had incorrect beliefs about it?

and there is evidence the earth is flat, because it appears to be

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Is reincarnation real because a billion people
in India beleive in it?

Maybe. Maybe not. If you think you found out then explain how you possibly
could have.

yes

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Get back to us when you can prove this bizarre
claim about how many people believe in something
making it true.

If God does exist do atheists disbelieving somehow make him cease to exist?

bingo!

Post by m***@.not.
LOL...the very idea 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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Obama

felix_unger

2014-10-04 03:52:04 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them
to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?
What does it matter how many people believe something?

and the more ppl who believe something, the greater the likelihood they
have good reason to do so, and the greater the possibility that the
belief is true

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:53:23 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:36 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It
just leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them
to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Huh?
What does it matter how many people believe something?

and the more ppl who believe something, the greater the likelihood they
have good reason to do so, and the greater the possibility that the
belief is true

That's one of the many easy starting lines these morons can't get as "far"
as. To try to think of the possibility of God's existence and the possibility of
something we know is bullshit's existence in the same way is so retardedly
stupid that I don't believe a normal person could do it, but these morons act
like they do it all the time. Harry Potter is one of the most childlike and
horrendously stupid examples, though certainly not the only example.

Sylvia Else

2014-09-27 04:08:49 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Some people wrote them, just as people write stuff now. A lot of what
people write now is not true (and some doesn't even pretend to be).
There's no reason to think it was any different back then.

Post by m***@.not.
Then go
on to explain how the supposed lies were kept going and most importantly how
billions of people were persuaded to believe the supposed lies.

Most of them weren't persuaded, they were indoctrinated at an age where
they had no defence. Essentially, they were psychologically abused as
children, and in turn proceeded to psychologically abuse their own
offspring (and we see parallels in other forms of child abuse).

Of the rest, well we see cults appear often enough even in these
somewhat more enlightened times, and belief in paranormal stuff persists
despite any number of debunkings that show that money and power are the
motives for the deception. Apparently, in some people (too many!)
there's a desire to believe that makes them vulnerable to deception.

All it takes is for someone with charisma (and probably insanity and/or
psychopathy) to manage to gather a sufficiently large crowd of
congenital followers, and you've got yourself a religion.

Evidence? There doesn't have to be any.

Don't just say

Post by m***@.not.
some lame copout infantile mindless crap like you did above, but try explaining
IN DETAIL something that's at least some little bit respectable so there
actually is something to consider. We know you people have no clue about what
evidence you think should exist. Let's see if you are any less clueless about
how the evidence you claim doesn't exist actually came to exist.

A real God could do stuff I'd have difficult explaining, (things that go
against the very basics of fundamental physics as we understand them)
though in practice I might suspect I was seeing an advanced technology
rather than evidence of God. From that perspective, I suppose it's
arguable that I could never be convinced as to the existence of God.

Fortunately, that issue doesn't arise. We do not see around us anything
that remotely qualifies as evidence for either a God, or an advanced
technology.

It occurs to me that a real God could just make me believe, and not
bother with crudities such as evidence. The fact that God, if He exists,
has not chosen to do so is surely evidence that either God doesn't
exist, or that He doesn't care about whether people believe. On that
basis, whether or not God exists, you should not care whether other
people believe either. I wonder why you do.

Sylvia.

m***@.not.

2014-09-29 01:04:08 UTC

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:08:49 +1000, Sylvia Else <***@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

Some people wrote them,

You need to try to explain WHY they would write them.

Post by Sylvia Else
just as people write stuff now. A lot of what
people write now is not true (and some doesn't even pretend to be).
There's no reason to think it was any different back then.

You still need to explain WHY they would write them. And back then people
were killed for things like lying about God much more frequently and legally
than they are today, so that's one reason to think it was "any different back
then". So far you've got nothing.

Post by m***@.not.
Then go
on to explain how the supposed lies were kept going and most importantly how
billions of people were persuaded to believe the supposed lies.

Most of them weren't persuaded, they were indoctrinated at an age where
they had no defence.

The people who wrote the material you're being challenged to explain were
NOT at an age where they had no defence, and the first people to promote the
ideas were not just going around talking to other people's children. That would
get them killed quicker than presenting it to adults. So you still have nothing.

Post by Sylvia Else
Essentially, they were psychologically abused as
children, and in turn proceeded to psychologically abuse their own
offspring (and we see parallels in other forms of child abuse).
Of the rest, well we see cults appear often enough even in these
somewhat more enlightened times, and belief in paranormal stuff persists
despite any number of debunkings that show that money and power are the
motives for the deception.

What sort of money and power do you think rewarded the first people who
promoted Christianity?

Post by Sylvia Else
Apparently, in some people (too many!)
there's a desire to believe that makes them vulnerable to deception.

Why can't we say the same exact thing about the possibility that there's no
God associated with Earth?

Post by Sylvia Else
All it takes is for someone with charisma (and probably insanity and/or
psychopathy) to manage to gather a sufficiently large crowd of
congenital followers, and you've got yourself a religion.
Evidence? There doesn't have to be any.

That's a blatant lie, and that particular lie seems to be one of the
foundations of the strong atheist faith.

Post by m***@.not.
Don't just say
some lame copout infantile mindless crap like you did above, but try explaining
IN DETAIL something that's at least some little bit respectable so there
actually is something to consider. We know you people have no clue about what
evidence you think should exist. Let's see if you are any less clueless about
how the evidence you claim doesn't exist actually came to exist.

It's very amusing in a pathetic way that you're unable to consider the most
obvious and likely of possibilities, which of course is that if God does exist
he is FAR MORE technologically advanced than we are.

Post by Sylvia Else
From that perspective, I suppose it's
arguable that I could never be convinced as to the existence of God.

Your inability to consider the most obvious and likely possibility in
relation to God is evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan's
influence on weak human minds.

Post by Sylvia Else
Fortunately, that issue doesn't arise. We do not see around us anything
that remotely qualifies as evidence for either a God, or an advanced
technology.

Another one of the most basic and obvious aspects of our situation is that
if God does exist he is NOT ready to provide proof of his existence to everyone
yet, whether he ever will be ready to do so or not.

Post by Sylvia Else
It occurs to me that a real God could just make me believe, and not
bother with crudities such as evidence. The fact that God, if He exists,
has not chosen to do so is surely evidence that either God doesn't
exist, or that He doesn't care about whether people believe.

Some call that thinning the herd. Do you think there's anyone who really
cares if you personally are "thinned"? Do you think God should care if he
exists? If so, what could possibly make you think he should???

Post by Sylvia Else
On that
basis, whether or not God exists, you should not care whether other
people believe either. I wonder why you do.

I wonder why you do. Why do you think you care enough to try to discourage
people from considering a possibility that could reward them with a good
afterlife if such a thing exists? Do you have any idea about that?

Mitchell Holman

2014-09-29 02:10:35 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
What sort of money and power do you think rewarded the first people who
promoted Christianity?

Lots. Being a religious leader is a guaranteed
way of getting working people to support you so you
do not have to work yourself. Jesus didn't have to
work, neither did Paul or John or any of the cult
leaders. Even today we have James Hagee and Benny Hinn
and Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson, all living off
money working people sent them.

"If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology

m***@.not.

2014-10-02 22:27:40 UTC

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:10:35 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
What sort of money and power do you think rewarded the first people who
promoted Christianity?

Lots. Being a religious leader is a guaranteed
way of getting working people to support you so you
do not have to work yourself. Jesus didn't have to
work, neither did Paul or John or any of the cult
leaders. Even today we have James Hagee and Benny Hinn
and Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson, all living off
money working people sent them.
"If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology

So a guy had disciples following him around lying for him that he was
performing miracles, and somehow the lies got them fed and housed even though no
one ever saw any miracles, then the guy was at some point crucified for what he
had been telling people. Killed by the government for it. So after that his
disciples keep going around repeating the lies that got Jesus killed plus making
up another lie about him being resurrected. And instead of being exposed as the
liars you're claiming they were, and instead of getting killed for pretty much
the same thing Jesus did, they got rich and never had to work again. It might
make for an amusing movie, but I certainly can't put any faith in that being the
way it actually went down. Just describing what you're imagining is funny, but
in a really low level clueless sort of way.

felix_unger

2014-09-26 08:51:22 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.

Bob Casanova

2014-09-26 17:05:57 UTC

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

--
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

2014-09-27 02:01:45 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;

I never said it did. I said "then there is also.."

Post by Bob Casanova
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

rather I would say that one has faith in the veracity of ones beliefs,
and that beliefs without any supporting evidence would be rather
fanciful and virtually impossible to substantiate.

Post by Bob Casanova
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

faith is more than that

faith
noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm
faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to
be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our
recent troubles.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

m***@.not.

2014-09-29 01:04:13 UTC

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:01:45 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;

I never said it did. I said "then there is also.."

Post by Bob Casanova
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

rather I would say that one has faith in the veracity of ones beliefs,
and that beliefs without any supporting evidence would be rather
fanciful and virtually impossible to substantiate.

Post by Bob Casanova
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

faith is more than that
faith
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm
faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to
be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our
recent troubles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Would any of those things not apply to atheist faith that God does not
exist? How about to atheist faith that there is no evidence of God's existence?

Mitchell Holman

2014-09-29 02:11:24 UTC

wrote: .

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to
believe, and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;

I never said it did. I said "then there is also.."

Post by Bob Casanova
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

rather I would say that one has faith in the veracity of ones beliefs,
and that beliefs without any supporting evidence would be rather
fanciful and virtually impossible to substantiate.

Post by Bob Casanova
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

faith is more than that
faith
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
firm faith of the Pilgrims.
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our
recent troubles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Would any of those things not apply to atheist faith that God does not
exist? How about to atheist faith that there is no evidence of God's existence?

"Atheist faith"?

m***@.not.

2014-10-02 22:26:08 UTC

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:11:24 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.

wrote: .

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to
believe, and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;

I never said it did. I said "then there is also.."

Post by Bob Casanova
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

rather I would say that one has faith in the veracity of ones beliefs,
and that beliefs without any supporting evidence would be rather
fanciful and virtually impossible to substantiate.

Post by Bob Casanova
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

faith is more than that
faith
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
firm faith of the Pilgrims.
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our
recent troubles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Would any of those things not apply to atheist faith that God does not
exist? How about to atheist faith that there is no evidence of God's existence?

"Atheist faith"?

Some of the atheists in these ngs are not ashamed of their faith that God
doesn't exist, though the majority of them are. But I have yet to encounter one
that's not ashamed to reveal his or her faith that there's no evidence of God's
existence. I wouldn't be surprised if they are all ashamed to admit it even
after clearly revealing it, but so far I haven't encountered any who haven't
made it clear that they have it. Every one of them who says there is no evidence
is proclaiming his or her faith in that being the correct possibility. Only
those who aren't stupid enough to actually believe it don't have faith in it,
but they're dishonestly pretending to be stupid enough to have faith in it even
so. Were you somehow unaware of such obvious things before I explained them for
you?

Mitchell Holman

2014-10-03 02:19:38 UTC

wrote: .

wrote: .

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:14:54 -0400, Olrik

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no
evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would
be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to
believe, and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;

I never said it did. I said "then there is also.."

Post by Bob Casanova
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

rather I would say that one has faith in the veracity of ones
beliefs, and that beliefs without any supporting evidence would be
rather fanciful and virtually impossible to substantiate.

Post by Bob Casanova
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

faith is more than that
faith
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,
etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith
during our recent troubles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Would any of those things not apply to atheist faith that God does not
exist? How about to atheist faith that there is no evidence of God's existence?

"Atheist faith"?

Are you "ashamed" of your faith that Odin
doesn't exist? Are you "ashamed" of your faith
that Vishnu doesn't exist?

Or is your denial of those deities based
on something different than no evidence of
their existence?

Malte Runz

2014-10-03 11:04:28 UTC

"Mitchell Holman" skrev i meddelelsen news:***@216.196.121.131...

(snip)

Post by Mitchell Holman
Are you "ashamed" of your faith that Odin
doesn't exist? Are you "ashamed" of your faith
that Vishnu doesn't exist?
Or is your denial of those deities based
on something different than no evidence of
their existence?

mur is an utter nut-job, and apart from the occational BJ from felix_unger
he is all alone in the world. He has been droning on and on about atheist
being 'ashamed' about their belief that there is no god or their faith in
there being no evidence for God, and he insists that atheists must be able
to say what evidence for a god there should be.

Ignore him and move on, that's my advice. Let him feel superior if it gives
him a kick. Fuck 'im! You'll never get him to concede a point even if it is
blatantly obvious to everybody, himself included, that he is wrong. Never,
ever, ever...

--
Malte Runz

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:45:31 UTC

On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 13:04:28 +0200, Chicken Runz squawked::
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Most of the atheists in these ngs HAVE denied their belief that God doesn't
exist. And in fact YOU were the first, and one of the very few, who was not
ashamed to confess your own faith:

"There is no god." - Malte Runz

"How many times do I need to write: "I believe no gods exist" for you to
realize that nobody is ashamed of neither not believing in gods, nor
believing gods do not exist?" - Malte Runz

Post by Malte Runz
or their faith in there being no evidence for God,

YOU have made it known you have faith in that too:

"the utter lack of evidence is enough for me to believe that there are no gods.
Anywhere, anywhen." - Malte Runz

though now it appears you're ashamed of it and are now trying to crawl away from
yourself.

Post by Malte Runz
and he insists that atheists must be able
to say what evidence for a god there should be.

LOL!!! Because they certainly should have some clue what they think they
think. It's still amusing that atheists believe there should be some sort of
evidence, and not just evidence but...LOL...verifiable evidence of God's
existence if he does exist. They don't have any clue at all what they think it
should be, or where they think it should be, or why they think it should be
there...LOL....but they still think "it" should be somewhere for some reason.
This is another example where just describing the position you people are in is
hilarious.

Post by Malte Runz
Ignore him and move on, that's my advice. Let him feel superior if it gives
him a kick.

It's not that I'm on a superior level. It's that you atheists are on an
especially low level to the point of not knowing what you think you think, the
evidence issue being an especially clear example. You in particular are a very
pathetic case. You have claimed that the following concepts have entered your
overly restricted little brain:
_________________________________________________________
"I don't think God could be a native to Earth." - Malte Runz

"I don't think any naitive to Earth has any powers, supernatural or just
natural, that makes him/her/it appear godlike." - Malte Runz

"Don't you read what I actually write? God as an alien is NOT a new concept
to me. It's roughly 40 years since I first heard of Erich van Dänekin and
all that crap. Don't think you're ahead of me in that department." - Malte Runz

"Aaaaarrrrghhhhh! I have written, at least ten times, in various posts, that
I believe it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures in the
universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to us. The
idea is not new to me. Why the hell do you claim that I believe the exact
opposite?" - Malte Runz
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
butt you have faith that no such being could be associated with Earth, yet you
can't give any respectable explanation as to WHY. It's because I challenge you
on such things and YOUR OWN cluelessness defeats when you are challenged
resulting in congnitive dissonance in your overly challenged little mind, that
you have surrendered and are afraid of responding to me any more. Cognitive
dissonance is very uncomfortable, and the only way you have of keeping it down
as much as possible is to hide away from things that trigger it like the
challenges I present you with.
Another example of you not know what you think you think is this problem you
kept having and most likely still do have:

"I must insist that you distinguish between Biblical God and
Advanced Alien God." - Malte Runz

LOL...that one is still amusing. Even after I pointed out for you a number of
times that it would be THE SAME BEING, and probably gave you examples involving
the sun and moon etc time after time, you never could comprehend. Nor could you
explain how YOU think anyone should "distinguish between" God and himself. I
believe challenging you on your own horrendous ignorance about that particular
aspect was the final straw that caused you to run sobbing away and be afraid to
try responding to any more challenges for you to try to explain YOUR SELF.

Post by Malte Runz
Fuck 'im!

Another way that I pointed out how you defeated yourself and the challenge
for you to try to explain yourself defeated you entirely was in response to this
lie:

"I showed an example of evidence that proves god does not exist." - Malte Runz

There is NO "evidence that proves god does not exist" and certainly nothing
you've shown has or could do so. You lied blatantly when you made the claim, and
couldn't even pretend to present the supposed "example" when challenged directly
to try doing so. You have proven yourself to be a horrible wuss and a blatant
liar, so fuck you!

Post by Malte Runz
You'll never get him to concede a point even if it is
blatantly obvious to everybody, himself included, that he is wrong. Never,
ever, ever...

You neglected to mention that I often challenged you to TRY TO explain what
you want me to think I'm wrong about. The simple challenge to try to explain
"Like what?" has completely defeated you and others of your ilk a number of
times and afawk none of you could give examples and provide the evidence that I
was wrong. Never, ever, ever... Also you never conceded a point or admitted that
you have no idea what you think you're trying to talk about even after you made
it clearly obvious that you don't, nor did you ever try to get a clue and rise a
bit above your own pitifully clueless position. Never, ever, ever...

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:44:49 UTC

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:19:38 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.

wrote: .

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence
for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the
absence of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to
believe, and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;

I never said it did. I said "then there is also.."

Post by Bob Casanova
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

rather I would say that one has faith in the veracity of ones beliefs,
and that beliefs without any supporting evidence would be rather
fanciful and virtually impossible to substantiate.

Post by Bob Casanova
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

faith is more than that
faith
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
firm faith of the Pilgrims.
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our
recent troubles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Would any of those things not apply to atheist faith that God does not
exist? How about to atheist faith that there is no evidence of God's existence?

"Atheist faith"?

Are you

I'll take that to mean that you were unaware of the things I explained for
you, and also that you might somehow STILL be unaware of them even after they
were explained for you.

Post by Mitchell Holman
"ashamed" of your faith that Odin
doesn't exist? Are you "ashamed" of your faith
that Vishnu doesn't exist?
Or is your denial of those deities based
on something different than no evidence of
their existence?

I have no reason to believe that if there is a God associated with this
planet some people don't think of him as Odin, or Vishnu, or any other name or
being. I also have no reason to believe there are no beings that work with him
that could also be referred to by such names. I also have no reason to believe
there is no being or group of beings who work against him. So of course I have
no faith that none of the beings people have thought of as gods could exist. At
this time I'll also point out that if God does exist I don't believe he is
restricted to any particular form or gender, but refer to him as a male out of
convenience and whatever other reasons I have for doing so.

felix_unger

2014-10-04 02:08:52 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;

I never said it did. I said "then there is also.."

Post by Bob Casanova
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

rather I would say that one has faith in the veracity of ones beliefs,
and that beliefs without any supporting evidence would be rather
fanciful and virtually impossible to substantiate.

Post by Bob Casanova
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

faith is more than that
faith
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm
faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to
be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our
recent troubles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Would any of those things not apply to atheist faith that God does not
exist? How about to atheist faith that there is no evidence of God's existence?

yes, atheists have faith that their beliefs are correct.

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

Malte Runz

2014-10-04 10:59:03 UTC

"felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen news:***@mid.individual.net...

(snip)

Post by felix_unger
yes, atheists have faith that their beliefs are correct.

When all you have left is a virtual suicide belt, it's time to retreat and
rethink your strategy. Every time you use the 'atheists have faith' (=
'atheist are just as feeble minded as we are are') argument, you show us
that you realize you have lost the battle.

--
Malte Runz

m***@.not.

2014-10-05 22:53:39 UTC

On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 12:59:03 +0200, Chicken Runz wrote:
.

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be
nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;

I never said it did. I said "then there is also.."

Post by Bob Casanova
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".

rather I would say that one has faith in the veracity of ones beliefs,
and that beliefs without any supporting evidence would be rather
fanciful and virtually impossible to substantiate.

Post by Bob Casanova
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

faith is more than that
faith
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm
faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to
be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our
recent troubles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Would any of those things not apply to atheist faith that God does not
exist? How about to atheist faith that there is no evidence of God's existence?

(snip)

Notice I undid your cowardly chicken snipping.

Post by felix_unger
yes, atheists have faith that their beliefs are correct.

When all you have left is a virtual suicide belt, it's time to retreat and
rethink your strategy.

We're certainly not in that position. We are in the position to discuss YOUR
faith, and whether YOUR faith could be in any way superior to considering the
possibility that God does exist. I challenge you to try explaining how you want
people to think it could be.

Post by Malte Runz
Every time you use the 'atheists have faith' (=
'atheist are just as feeble minded as we are are') argument, you show us
that you realize you have lost the battle.

That's stupid even for someone as stupid as you've shown yourself to be.
From what I understand he doesn't have faith that there is a God associated with
Earth, and I don't either. But we both consider the possibility not putting all
our faith in the one possibility that there is not. YOU in contrast DO put all
your faith in that one possibility showing that you are FAR MORE feeble minded
than we are. Trying to pretend that atheist faith is less "feeble minded" than
any other is extremely childlike, and shows great shallowness and closed minded
egotism. Since YOU brought it up though, I challenge you to try to explain how
you want people to think atheistic faith that God does not exist is in any way
superior to having faith that he does. I predict the challenge will defeat you
to the point that you can't even attempt to address it.

BruceS

2014-09-27 03:19:42 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

So, does the OED have anything to say about "evidence" that supports the
definition as being "someone believes it" or "there's a fanciful book of
fairy dust that says"? Or maybe the OED is all stodgy and rational, and
doesn't accept wishes and dreams as evidence.

Bob Casanova

2014-09-27 17:33:44 UTC

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:19:42 -0600, the following appeared

Post by BruceS

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared

Post by m***@.not.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
.

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

What lies?

All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for God's
existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.

The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence
of evidence.
As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just
leaves open the question of why people believe.

If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.

If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?
Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,
and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.

but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence

Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that
evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;
only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".
BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the
doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction
rather than proof".

To some extent it does; see def 1.1. But this is a less
restrictive definition than its usage by science (compare
with the scientific definition of "theory" vs common usage),
which requires *objective* evidence:

evidence

noun

1 The available body of facts or information indicating
whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

"The study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

1.1 Law
Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a
material object, used to establish facts in a legal
investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:

"Without evidence, they cant bring a charge"

1.2 Signs or indications of something:

"There was no obvious evidence of a break-in"

--
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

grabber

2014-09-13 20:08:24 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
Would they be able to post at all?

Oh dear.

Mur's trajectory converges on %'s.

You could argue that this is the way things have been heading, but it's
none the prettier for that.

m***@.not.

2014-09-25 22:35:42 UTC

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:09:01 +0200, "Malte Runz" <***@forgitit.dk> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

we don't think the bible exists, it does exist. we don't think
the
koran
exists, it does exist. etc.,

And some people know they have been abducted by aliens. You

never >> > told

Post by Malte Runz
me if
you think their testimony is evidence for UFOs visiting Earth.
(snip)

if there are ppl who testify to having been abducted by aliens,

then it >> is

evidence for alien visitations. just as the various reported

sightings >> of

UFO's are. ...

One word for you: Atlantis.

Bigfoot?

God?

... what do you think they are evidence for? ...

That they're struggling with low self-esteem. That they're suckers
for
attention. That they have problematic sleep patterns. That they are
victims
of manipulating 'psychologists' specializing in retrieval of

surpressed

memories of Greys performing those deep, deep probings.

lol! so it can be evidence for anything except what it purports to be
evidence for. you're funny!

Which is more likely, one or more of my suggestions or that they were
actually abducted, probed and dumped back into their beds?

irrelevant to the fact of it being evidence

So, let me ask you what you think the testimony from selfproclaimed
abductees is evidence for?
What if I were to say, that God, who has the shape of a spider, lives under
my bed? How seriously would you consider my claim? If I showed you a picture
of the actual spider, would that convince you?

... your football team winning the superbowl?

Ha ha ha ha
Another one: Cynocephalus
"The dog-headed men were a fierce warrior tribe, but they also

traded > with

the few humans they trusted. They were reported [EVIDENCE!!!] to live
primarily in India and Northern Africa, but were seen in
many places [more EVIDENCE!!!] in between."
http://www.gods-and-monsters.com/cynocephalus.html

No comment, eh? So there is a limit to the absurdity of a claim for it
to be considered seriously, regardless that is 'backed up' by hearsay or
that many people believe it is true. Good to know, and I'll remind you
ever so often.

any evidence is considered on it's merit.

Not solely. What is the "merit" of the evidence for the Dog-heads? The
numerous reports of sightings, knowledge about their natural habitat and of
some of their abilities. How reliable is the evidence in itself? At what
point, if any, do you say 'Sure, people claimed to have seen them, but come
on ... Dog-heads? Really?'?

If there are beings from other star systems coming around here my guess
would be that the beings themselves don't come down to a barbaric planet like
this one. More likely they would send some sort of drones--biological
drones--instead of risking their own personal asses in a place like this. Unless
it's easy enough for them to occupy a number of different bodies that they don't
care too much if some of them are killed. Either way there's no reason and
certainly no evidence which suggests that they couldn't produce beings with the
head of a dog if they wanted to. The only real question would be WHY they would
want to, meaning that the only real question is so far beyond your mental
ability that you can't even appreciate it much less give it any realistic and
respectable consideration.

Along those same lines, if there are beings traveling from star system to
star system it seems most likely from my pov that they have the ability to
absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation as they choose to. Not doing a
piss poor job of it with half assed photovoltaic cells as humans are barely able
to do, but with very high efficiency of many if not all bandwidths. That would
mean we wouldn't be able to detect them with radar when they don't want us to
because they would absorb the radiation rather than allow it to reflect back.
Again this is all stuff you almost certainly can't think about realistically
much less appreciate but it leads up the the point I'm making which again is
something you won't be able to appreciate. None the less the point is that like
the appearances of the drone beings, they would also be selective of how they
present their vehicles to us. If they were to absorb all of the ER then we
wouldn't be able to see them at all, especially at night which is when most of
them appear to be spotted. That means when they are sighted it is because the
beings DELIBERATELY present themselves for whatever reasons they have for doing
so. Going back to the dog headed drones, it would again be a way of presenting
themselves....or at least their drones. By doing it that way they are showing
something people can accept as being not of this world, while at the same time
having a friendly similarity about it so as not to horrify people too much. So
there's one possible answer to the question you're not really able to consider
in any realistic way(s).

m***@.not.

2014-09-29 01:03:50 UTC

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:42:23 +0200, "Malte Runz" <***@forgitit.dk> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Actually it is you who has to defend the possible existence of
Dog-heads, Aliens and probings, Atlantis, Bigfoot and so on, in order to
being to claim that simple heresay is evidence for the existence of
gods.

so there's NO evidence for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, etc.,
etc., ...

That's right. There isn't.

http://is.gd/jKsoLt

felix_unger

2014-10-05 01:21:24 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

so there's NO evidence for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, etc.,
etc., ...

That's right. There isn't.

http://is.gd/jKsoLt

http://www.ufoevidence.org/

--
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 future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” - Barack Hussein Obama

m***@.not.

2014-09-29 01:04:02 UTC

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:58:03 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

we don't think the bible exists, it does exist. we don't think the
koran
exists, it does exist. etc.,

And some people know they have been abducted by aliens. You never told
me if
you think their testimony is evidence for UFOs visiting Earth.
(snip)

if there are ppl who testify to having been abducted by aliens, then it
is evidence for alien visitations. just as the various reported
sightings of UFO's are. what do you think they are evidence for? your
football team winning the superbowl?

These people who can't consider the possibility that God exists
also seem
unable to comprehend that some evidence is false. I can't even imagine
being so
horribly mentally restricted, but then I guess they can't imagine not
being so
horribly mentally restricted. LOL....if they could, then I guess they
wouldn't
be...LOL...

LOL! they are so desperate to deny there's any evidence for God they tie
themselves up in knots trying to prove evidence is not evidence

<piggybacking>
What evidence?

Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you
think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him
to provide us with it if he exists.

m***@.not.

2014-09-29 01:04:34 UTC

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 23:08:31 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

we don't think the bible exists, it does exist. we don't think

the >>>> koran

exists, it does exist. etc.,

And some people know they have been abducted by aliens. You never

told

Post by Malte Runz
me if
you think their testimony is evidence for UFOs visiting Earth.
(snip)

if there are ppl who testify to having been abducted by aliens,

then it

is evidence for alien visitations. just as the various reported
sightings of UFO's are. what do you think they are evidence for? your
football team winning the superbowl?

These people who can't consider the possibility that God exists >

also seem

unable to comprehend that some evidence is false. I can't even

imagine > being so

horribly mentally restricted, but then I guess they can't imagine

not > being so

horribly mentally restricted. LOL....if they could, then I guess

they > wouldn't

be...LOL...

LOL! they are so desperate to deny there's any evidence for God they
tie themselves up in knots trying to prove evidence is not evidence

Actually it is you who has to defend the possible existence of
Dog-heads, Aliens and probings, Atlantis, Bigfoot and so on, in order
to being to claim that simple heresay is evidence for the existence of
gods.

so there's NO evidence for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, etc.,
etc., just because no one can prove they exist, right? wrong!

It's one thing to believe none of the evidence was produced from or in
referrence to something that actually does exist. That is just putting faith in
the possibility that all of the evidence is false. But it's very much a
different thing to be so incredibly stupid as to honestly believe there is no
evidence at all...not even any false evidence. This particular aspect is
certainly one where the question arrises whether these people are honestly
stupid enough to believe their own claim that there is no evidence at all which
would be horribly incredibly stupid, or if they're so very comfortable with
blatantly lying that they don't mind pretending they're more stupid than they
actually are. Either way it shows that they're on an extremely low level.

felix_unger

2014-10-04 03:54:01 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

we don't think the bible exists, it does exist. we don't think

the >>>> koran