🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> 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...
Oh, theres lots ofevidence he existed, just not a lot that he was that 
special..