XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: me@nothere.biz

On 06-October-2014 9:45 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:33:27 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:
> ..
>> On 03-October-2014 8:27 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:28:50 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> On 29-September-2014 4:29 AM, grabber wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/09/2014 11:23, Malte Runz wrote:
>>>>>> "grabber"  skrev i meddelelsen news:CAEVv.595807$7b1.280829@fx01.am4...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and
>>>>>>> Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in
>>>>>>> believing in
>>>>>>> Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...
>>>>>> I believe there's a huge disagreement.
>>>>> I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
>>>>> disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing in
>>>>> Nessie?
>>>> I would need to examine the evidence. :)  ..which according to some ppl
>>>> doesn't exist of course
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> f_u regards any and every kind of
>>>>>> hearsay as evidence:
>>>>> Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
>>>>> included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
>>>>> debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
>>>>> which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
>>>>> grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
>>>>> somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
>>>>> discuss this.
>>>> 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???
>> 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.
>
>      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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)