🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Jul 7, 8:24�pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 9:06 pm, rich...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <sba274h0m6sfce2dq2q7nqsrh2lca5p...@4ax.com>,
>>> lu...@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
>>>> *From:* Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>> *Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500
>>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), rich...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard
>>>> Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>> In article <dv3v641nlblt9lrl26j45pnb5v085e8...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> lu...@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
>>>>>>> Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally
>>>>>> dogmatic
>>>>>>> that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of
>>>> the >> truth,
>>>>>>> despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a
>>>> decent >> set of
>>>>>>> repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position.
>>>>>> What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of
>>>>>> evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not
>>>>>> necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not
>>>> believe >> in
>>>>>> them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not
>>>>>> exist?
>>>>> I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to
>>>> insist
>>>>> on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims
>>>> to,
>>>>> that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the
>>>> marked
>>>>> similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the
>>>> beliefs
>>>>> of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they
>>>> want to,
>>>>> but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered
>>>>> arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real
>>>>> evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong.
>>>> Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the
>>>> theists
>>>> have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of
>>>> the
>>>> theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists,
>>>> it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A
>>>> does
>>>> not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims,
>>>> the
>>>> flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim
>>>> is
>>>> false.
>>> If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no such
>>> evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly.
>>> Your argument, therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are
>>> assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence
>>> that it is anything of the sort.
>>> There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and
>>> strong atheists are correct; in the lack of such evidence there is no
>>> justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in
>>> the status of a viewpoint supported by faith.
>> You are banking on a philosophical context, or approach.
>> When we talk about evidence, we are then sure of things or event or
>> happening. Anything solid in this world would have the possibility of
>> a definition.
>> But a god...can you provide a definition and his existence?
>> You very well know that a heaven and hell thing are the invention of
>> human imagination and yet you believe we should not doubt them?
>> And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that?
>> A decent human can have a brain that is full of sense, in search of
>> logic but a clouded mind will never be cleared of dogma.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Well, yes.  We have Jesus Christ, notwithstanding all of the efforts
> of atheists to pretend he never existed. 

You mean there isn't any evidence he existed and it upsets you that 
atheists notice this fact...