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.

Tom

2014-09-13 23:40:32 UTC

Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?

<***@.not.> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:***@4ax.com...
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?

Jeanne Douglas

2014-09-14 00:47:22 UTC

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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.

Well, then, please present your evidence. We've all been waiting for
years for someone to present this alleged evidence and no one has yet
done so.

--
JD

³Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration.²
--Abraham Lincoln

Christopher A. Lee

2014-09-14 06:51:34 UTC

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 17:47:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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.

Well, then, please present your evidence. We've all been waiting for
years for someone to present this alleged evidence and no one has yet
done so.

Theists don't believe because of evidence, but because they were
taught to in their earliest years before they had learned to think.

They lie to themselves that there is evidence. It's actually a
combination or rationalising what they already believe, and they also
"think" there must be evidence because otherwise they wouldn't believe
it.

And instead of thinking about it, when they get told to put up or shut
up, they get defensive and pre-emptively attack those they couldn't
leave in peace in the first place.

m***@.not.

2014-09-18 21:22:03 UTC

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 01:51:34 -0500, Wuss Lee wrote:
.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 17:47:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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.

Well, then, please present your evidence. We've all been waiting for
years for someone to present this alleged evidence and no one has yet
done so.

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.

felix_unger

2014-09-19 03:17:53 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 17:47:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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.

Well, then, please present your evidence. We've all been waiting for
years for someone to present this alleged evidence and no one has yet
done so.

Theists don't believe because of evidence,

that's a lie

Post by Christopher A. Lee
but because they were
taught to in their earliest years before they had learned to think.

doesn't explain those who convert in adult years, even atheists do.
(shock! horror!)

Post by Christopher A. Lee
They lie to themselves that there is evidence.

another lie

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's actually a
combination or rationalising what they already believe, and they also
"think" there must be evidence because otherwise they wouldn't believe
it.

we don't think the bible exists, it does exist. we don't think the koran
exists, it does exist. etc.,

Post by m***@.not.
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.

--
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”

Malte Runz

2014-09-20 23:49:37 UTC

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

(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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)

--
Malte Runz

felix_unger

2014-09-21 02:57:27 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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?

Olrik

2014-09-21 03:58:33 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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.

If someone testified that you did [insert odious and vile crime], would
it be evidence that you indeed did [insert odious and vile crime]?

Would you graciously accept the punishment?

Post by felix_unger
just as the various reported
sightings of UFO's are. what do you think they are evidence for? your
football team winning the superbowl?

You're a very stupid person.

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

felix_unger

2014-09-21 04:04:27 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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.

If someone testified that you did [insert odious and vile crime],
would it be evidence that you indeed did [insert odious and vile crime]?

no, evidence that possibly I did

Post by Olrik
Would you graciously accept the punishment?

it would have to be proven that I did before any punishment could be
inflicted by any relevant lawful authoirty

Post by felix_unger
just as the various reported
sightings of UFO's are. what do you think they are evidence for? your
football team winning the superbowl?

You're a very stupid person.

you lack common sense, and you didn't answer the question.

Olrik

2014-09-21 04:20:26 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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.

If someone testified that you did [insert odious and vile crime],
would it be evidence that you indeed did [insert odious and vile crime]?

no, evidence that possibly I did

My testimony would be evidence.

Post by Olrik
Would you graciously accept the punishment?

it would have to be proven that I did before any punishment could be
inflicted by any relevant lawful authoirty

My testimony would be enough.

Post by felix_unger
just as the various reported
sightings of UFO's are. what do you think they are evidence for? your
football team winning the superbowl?

You're a very stupid person.

you lack common sense, and you didn't answer the question.

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

felix_unger

2014-09-21 07:01:50 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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.

If someone testified that you did [insert odious and vile crime],
would it be evidence that you indeed did [insert odious and vile crime]?

no, evidence that possibly I did

My testimony would be evidence.

Post by Olrik
Would you graciously accept the punishment?

it would have to be proven that I did before any punishment could be
inflicted by any relevant lawful authoirty

My testimony would be enough.

Post by felix_unger
just as the various reported
sightings of UFO's are. what do you think they are evidence for? your
football team winning the superbowl?

You're a very stupid person.

you lack common sense, and you didn't answer the question.

thanks for proving you have nothing to contribute

Malte Runz

2014-09-21 10:09:50 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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. ...

One word for you: Atlantis.

... 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.

... 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

--
Malte Runz

felix_unger

2014-09-21 22:10:40 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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. ...

One word for you: Atlantis.

... what do you think they are evidence for? ...

lol! so it can be evidence for anything except what it purports to be
evidence for. you're funny!

... 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

Malte Runz

2014-09-22 17:41:14 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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. ...

One word for you: Atlantis.

Bigfoot?

... what do you think they are evidence for? ...

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?

... 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.

--
Malte Runz

felix_unger

2014-09-22 21:05:32 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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

Post by felix_unger
evidence for alien visitations. just as the various reported

sightings >> of

Post by felix_unger
UFO's are. ...

One word for you: Atlantis.

Bigfoot?

Post by felix_unger
... what do you think they are evidence for? ...

surpressed

Post by Malte Runz
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

Post by felix_unger
... 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

Post by Malte Runz
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.

Malte Runz

2014-09-23 10:09:01 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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

Post by felix_unger
evidence for alien visitations. just as the various reported

sightings >> of

Post by felix_unger
UFO's are. ...

One word for you: Atlantis.

Bigfoot?

God?

Post by felix_unger
... what do you think they are evidence for? ...

surpressed

Post by Malte Runz
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?

Post by felix_unger
... 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

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?'?

--
Malte Runz

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)

Post by felix_unger
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

Post by felix_unger
evidence for alien visitations. just as the various reported

sightings >> of

Post by felix_unger
UFO's are. ...

One word for you: Atlantis.

Bigfoot?

God?

Post by felix_unger
... what do you think they are evidence for? ...

surpressed

Post by Malte Runz
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?

Post by felix_unger
... 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

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.

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).

felix_unger

2014-09-29 01:45:19 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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

Post by felix_unger
evidence for alien visitations. just as the various reported

sightings >> of

Post by felix_unger
UFO's are. ...

One word for you: Atlantis.

Bigfoot?

God?

Post by felix_unger
... what do you think they are evidence for? ...

surpressed

Post by Malte Runz
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?

there's a plethora of reports about UFO's which together create evidence
for their existence.

Post by Malte Runz
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?

we need to use common sense.

Post by felix_unger
... 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

Post by Malte Runz
the few humans they trusted. They were reported [EVIDENCE!!!] to

live

Post by Malte Runz
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

Post by Malte Runz
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.

so you admit it's evidence. great!

Post by Malte Runz
How reliable is the evidence in itself?

you see, that's another matter. what atheists here have been trying to
do, is dismiss the value of evidence for God, but without admitting it
is evidence.

Post by Malte Runz
At what
point, if any, do you say 'Sure, people claimed to have seen them, but come
on ... Dog-heads? Really?'?

that would be an individual thing, wouldn't it

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://wwwpamelageller.com
"The only religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the Prophet Muhammad" - Adolf Hitler

Malte Runz

2014-10-01 10:51:56 UTC

(snip)

Post by Malte Runz
So, let me ask you what you think the testimony from selfproclaimed
abductees is evidence for?

there's a plethora of reports about UFO's which together create evidence
for their existence.

Do /you/ believe that UFO's have visited Earth?

we need to use common sense.

And what does your common sense tell you about 'Spider God under my bed'?

(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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.

so you admit it's evidence. great!

Of course I don't. When I ask biblical literalists about what active role
God played in the Flood, do you think it means that I "admit" that there is
a god and that there really was a huge flood?

Post by Malte Runz
How reliable is the evidence in itself?

you see, that's another matter. what atheists here have been trying to do,
is dismiss the value of evidence for God, but without admitting it is
evidence.

We dismiss hearsay as evidence. Give me a floating rock or a regrown limb or
something, then I'll call it evidence. But hearsay, myths and 'god feelings'
don't make the cut.

Post by Malte Runz
At what
point, if any, do you say 'Sure, people claimed to have seen them, but come
on ... Dog-heads? Really?'?

that would be an individual thing, wouldn't it

Exactly. It wouldn't be objective, but based on personal beliefs or lack
thereof.

--
Malte Runz

m***@.not.

2014-09-25 22:35:36 UTC

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:57:27 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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)

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...

felix_unger

2014-09-26 08:49:13 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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)

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

Malte Runz

2014-09-26 10:00:48 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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)

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.

--
Malte Runz

felix_unger

2014-09-26 13:08:31 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
we don't think the bible exists, it does exist. we don't think

the >>>> koran

Post by felix_unger
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

Post by felix_unger
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!

Malte Runz

2014-09-26 17:42:23 UTC

(snip)

Post by Malte Runz
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.

Post by felix_unger
... just because no one can prove they exist, right? ...

'I love the smell of strawmen in the morning.' That's not my argument.

Post by felix_unger
... wrong!

Noone can prove that Dog-Heads exist because there is no evidence to base a
proof on. Same goes for UFO's, Bigfoot and Nessi. So why not also for gods?
If your answer should be 'because there IS evidence for God', I'll match you
'evidence for God' with a similar piece of evidence for the
'absurdity-du-jour'.

--
Malte Runz

felix_unger

2014-09-27 02:04:34 UTC

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.

wrong

http://ausnet.info/evidence

Malte Runz

2014-09-28 10:45:12 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Actually it is you who has to defend the possible existence of >

That's right. There isn't.

wrong
http://ausnet.info/evidence

Again?

" that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;
proof."
How can the abductees testimony "prove or disprove" that aliens have visited
Earth.
Are ancient texts about Dog-Heads "ground for belief" in their existence?
Are grainy photos of Bigfoot "proof" that Bigfoot exists?

"something which shows that something else exists or is true"
Show me something that shows that Nessie exists.

"to make evident; show clearly"
'In the beginning was the Word... '
Well, that settles it.

--
Malte Runz

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)

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

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)

Post by felix_unger
we don't think the bible exists, it does exist. we don't think

the >>>> koran

Post by felix_unger
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

Post by felix_unger
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.

Jeanne Douglas

2014-09-26 18:58:03 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger
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)

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?

Post by Malte Runz
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.

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)

Post by felix_unger
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)

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.

2014-09-18 21:21:46 UTC

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 17:47:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
.

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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.

Well, then, please present your evidence.

Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists are
evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem to have been
answered are evidence.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
We've all been waiting for
years for someone to present this alleged evidence and no one has yet
done so.

You're lying. So here are two challenges that will defeat you entirely:

1. Try to explain what you think you could gain by telling that lie over and
over again.

2. 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.

felix_unger

2014-09-19 03:10:22 UTC

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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.

Well, then, please present your evidence.

how many times do we need to keep answering the same question, over, and
over, and over??

Post by Jeanne Douglas
We've all been waiting for
years for someone to present this alleged evidence and no one has yet
done so.

1. Try to explain what you think you could gain by telling that lie over and
over again.

they think if they keep saying there's no evidence it will eventually
become true? lol!

Post by m***@.not.
2. 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.

2014-09-25 22:35:29 UTC

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:10:22 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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.

Well, then, please present your evidence.

how many times do we need to keep answering the same question, over, and
over, and over??

They deny every bit of evidence that there is, making it impossible for them
to distinguish between what really could be evidence and what's not.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
We've all been waiting for
years for someone to present this alleged evidence and no one has yet
done so.

1. Try to explain what you think you could gain by telling that lie over and
over again.

they think if they keep saying there's no evidence it will eventually
become true? lol!

May be. They don't have any idea what evidence they think there should be,
that much is certain. They can't even imagine what they think there should be.
What they continue to demand is over their own heads entirely. Their own demands
are so far beyond them they have no clue at all, and again just describing the
position they're in is quite hilarious.

walksalone

2014-09-14 02:32:32 UTC

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?

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

What lies?

People, especially the weak minded & small children, find it easy to
believe in all sorts of nonsense. From gods, to Big Foot, to zombies.
It matters not, someone is likely to believe in it. & if there is power
over others to be had in peddling the belief, it will be peddled.

Post by Tom
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

Which of course, there isn't. Is there evidence, or books & fables.
Those items are not synonymous unless you trim the items to just books &
fables.
As to evidence for the gods, though I study mythology, I've yet to see
any having been provided. Especially lacking is evidence for the
revealed god of the desert. You know, the last god in line in the Hebrew
Bible, his red headed step son & the johnny come lately of Islam.

Post by Tom
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

I know according to the claims for most of the gods, they can't exist. I
also know according to the text used by most, if not all, mythology's,
their gods can't exist as described or claimed. But then, I've bothered
to read the material without someone telling me what it means versus what
it says.
Take the guilt trip claimed by the followers of the red headed step son
of the revealed senior god of the desert.

Seems they, as a rule of thumb think it was a fruit from a tree of
knowledge. What the majority I've talked with don't know, it was the
tree of knowledge of good & evil. They got the boot before they ate from
the tree of life. BTW, why was it Eve & not Adam's first wife that ate
the fruit?

Post by Tom
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.

Depends on the god & its claimed powers. In the case of the revealed
gods of the desert, their holy books say those gods can't exist. One can
pretend to make a case with special pleading & other logical fallacies,
but they still don't exist According to those books. All three of them.

Post by Tom
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.

Believe, or have faith. The two words are synonymous with theists. Not
so much with people that try & use English correctly. Belief can be &
usually is based on evidence. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow,
or is it an article of faith? BTW, belief as used by the theists I've
encountered, to include a Cao Dia from Nam in 65, is an active process.
They actually think about it. Bit different from my belief my daughters
are the most beautiful women in the world, or known universe.
There is evidence for my daughters, not so much for gods.

walksalone who is a bit startled at how soon some schools are letting out
for Thanksgiving holiday. Or is there a new school holiday I'm unaware
of.

[1]

I believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man. It
is us.
-Konrad Lorenz, ethologist, Nobel laureate (1903-1989)

m***@.not.

2014-09-18 21:21:50 UTC

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 02:32:32 GMT, walksalone <***@nerdshack.com> wrote:
.

Post by walksalone

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?

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

What lies?

I know according to the claims for most of the gods, they can't exist. I
also know according to the text used by most, if not all, mythology's,
their gods can't exist as described or claimed. But then, I've bothered
to read the material without someone telling me what it means versus what
it says.
Take the guilt trip claimed by the followers of the red headed step son
of the revealed senior god of the desert.
Seems they, as a rule of thumb think it was a fruit from a tree of
knowledge. What the majority I've talked with don't know, it was the
tree of knowledge of good & evil. They got the boot before they ate from
the tree of life. BTW, why was it Eve & not Adam's first wife that ate
the fruit?

Post by Tom
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.

What makes you think none of the beliefs could not be incorrect?

Post by walksalone
but they still don't exist According to those books. All three of them.

According to things people have believed the sun and moon don't exist
either.

Post by walksalone

Believe, or have faith. The two words are synonymous with theists. Not
so much with people that try & use English correctly.

You have faith there is no God associated with Earth, and possibly no God
anywhere in the universe. I consider the possibility that there is no God
associated with Earth but feel it more unlikely than that there is, and consider
it extremely unlikely that there are any beings anywhere in the universe who
could not be considered Gods.

Post by walksalone
Belief can be &
usually is based on evidence. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow,

The sun never rises.

Post by walksalone
or is it an article of faith?

You have faith that the sun rises. I believe it never does. You probably
have faith that grass is green. I believe it "is" not green.

Dakota

2014-09-14 05:12:03 UTC

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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

What lies?

Instead of posting meaningless word salad, why not provide some
verifiable evidence that supports your idea of a god?

m***@.not.

2014-09-18 21:21:54 UTC

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 00:12:03 -0500, Dakota <***@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
.

Post by Dakota

Post by Tom
Wow. Why don't you believe then and fucking leave us alone?
.

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

What lies?

Instead of posting meaningless word salad, why not provide some
verifiable evidence that supports your idea of a god?

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.

So far no one has been able to explain any of those things. Maybe you can be
the first? Or maybe you'll just wuss away from the challenges like everyone else
has done.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

2014-09-18 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?

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.
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 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 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

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

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

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