How/What do atheists WANT God to be?

[mur@.not]

Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
would billions of people believe it to be true. If God does exist there is
plenty of evidence of it. If God does not exist there is nothing but false
evidence, but still enough of that to convince lots of people that he does.

The atheist position encourages the question of how or what they WANT God to
be. If he does exist it's obvious that he deliberately doesn't provide proof of
his existence. If he did things would be much different than they are, so if he
wants things to be as they are he of course can't provide the proof atheists
demand. But if God does exist, what and how do atheists want him to be? Do they
want him to provide proof of his existence every time they ask for it? Do they
want him to answer every prayer everyone ever makes, and do it immediately? Do
they want him to devote his entire existence to satisfying the wants of humans?
If people knew that he exists, no doubt they would be even more demanding and
wanting of his favors than they are already, so demanding atheists must want God
to devote his entire existence to satisfying humans. They also often seem to
feel that he should eliminate all "evil". That would mean he would have to
devote even more of his already greatly consumed time eliminating all disease,
preventing anyone from doing anything "evil" to anyone or anything else, and of
course he would have to eliminate all predatory animals. Since humans have
learned that when predators are removed from an area their prey populations
often grow too large for the area to support, it seems God would have to
eliminate the prey animals as well. Maybe he would have to eliminate all life on
Earth in order to eliminate all "evil".

In support of Christ this Christmas Eve I'd like to point out that if God
exists and did as we're told through Jesus, he entered the world as humans do
but from birth by a virgin. Not having been cast down from Heaven, or coming out
of the sea or out of the Earth itself as Satan and his crew.

John 10:1 Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep
pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.

Also as Jesus he experienced the things humans go through living life as a boy
and then a man, and endured horrible suffering that none of us would ever want
to go through. He did things that caused changes in humanity and which led to
suffering, but also to relief and hope and pleasant lives for billions of people
in the future. In that one short lifetime on Earth he did more to influence the
lives of humanity than probably any other being that has ever lived. Of course
I'm sure atheists think he should have done all that differently too. So
how/what do atheists WANT Jesus to have been, also?

[Witziges Rätsel]

On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>
> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>

If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
Convince us. Show us the way.

[george152]

In all the years that we've been blighted by religions and the various
gods there has never been evidence of a god.
Its a crock of shit that keeps the conmen fat and the gullible thin

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:g7ojb9lf4bac7sohd...@4ax.com...

> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which
> of
> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
> less
> would billions of people believe it to be true.

Since there is no evidence, and since billions have believed in a god, the
answer to your question is yes.

If God does exist there is
> plenty of evidence of it.

Yet you are unable to provide any.

If God does not exist there is nothing but false
> evidence, but still enough of that to convince lots of people that he
> does.

False evidence? That is another way of saying no evidence.

>
> The atheist position encourages the question of how or what they WANT
> God to
> be.

Of course you will be unable to explain how it encourages such a question.

If he does exist it's obvious that he deliberately doesn't provide proof of
> his existence.

So now you admit there is no evidence.

If he did things would be much different than they are, so if he
> wants things to be as they are he of course can't provide the proof
> atheists
> demand. But if God does exist, what and how do atheists want him to be?

Since atheists do not believe in any kind of god, your question is silly.
Theists make a claim; atheists do not believe the claim. Why would we want
anything from a god we do not believe? Why don't you drop your silly
strawman description of atheists? It would be more honest.

snip
--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[raven1]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>course can't be the case

Why not?

> or no one would even consider the concept

People consider all sorts of concepts for which there is no good
evidence, or any evidence at all. I give you ESP, ghosts, UFO
abductions, and any number of conspiracy theories (9/11 was an inside
job, the Moon landings were faked) as just a few of many examples.
You're being hopelessly silly.

>much less
>would billions of people believe it to be true.

Argumentum ad Populum? Seriously? That's such a boring logical
fallacy.

> If God does exist there is
>plenty of evidence of it.

List it here.

> If God does not exist there is nothing but false
>evidence, but still enough of that to convince lots of people that he does.

What do you mean by "false evidence" here? Is some agent deliberately
planting it, or do you mean that people might be wrongly interpreting
phenomena they don't understand as evidence that a deity exists?

> The atheist position encourages the question of how or what they WANT God to
>be. If he does exist it's obvious that he deliberately doesn't provide proof of
>his existence.

Make up your mind: is there evidence for the existence of deities or
isn't there? Come back when you're a bit less confused.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>would billions of people believe it to be true.

If there is a god then why do you need to provide proof? Why do you
need to convince, talk into, force people to believe one exists?

If a god existed no proof would be needed. It would be apparent to
all humanity. Instead it's as if a god doesn't exist. Perfectly
doesn't exist.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Olrik]

Le 2013-12-24 14:31, mur@.not a �crit :

> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
> would billions of people believe it to be true.




> If God does exist there is
> plenty of evidence of it.

Read your sentence again and see what's wrong with it.



<snippage>

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

[thomas p.]

"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:l9dn1k$run$2...@dont-email.me...

> Le 2013-12-24 14:31, mur@.not a �crit :
>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
>> which of
>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>> less
>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>
>
>
>
>> If God does exist there is
>> plenty of evidence of it.
>
> Read your sentence again and see what's wrong with it.

How optimistic!

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

[Les Hellawell]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 00:19:31 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

We seem to be getting a lot of those kinds of questions lately but
we are here partially to help the confused.if we can.

>Theists make a claim; atheists do not believe the claim. Why would we want
>anything from a god we do not believe? Why don't you drop your silly
>strawman description of atheists?

Inability?

> It would be more honest.

You might have been more helpful if you explained what
honesty is, Christians and certain agnostics seem to have
difficulty grasping that concept

--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,

Stops at the first lie.

It's not a belief but a falsifiable conclusion about something you
morons have yet to show has any relevance outside your religion.

And it's reinforced every time one of you lies about us instead of
providing it, cop out of providing it, etc.

[thomas p.]

"Les Hellawell" <l...@shant-tell.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:41glb9drgv9hpqtu2...@4ax.com...

Clearly it is something that interferes with believing their dogma and is,
therefore, sinful.

>
> --
> Les Hellawell
> Greetings from
> YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

[mur@.not]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:06:18 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>would billions of people believe it to be true.
>
> If there is a god then why do you need to provide proof? Why do you
>need to convince, talk into, force people to believe one exists?
>
> If a god existed no proof would be needed. It would be apparent to
>all humanity.

How do you want people to think it would be.

>Instead it's as if a god doesn't exist. Perfectly
>doesn't exist.

If he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does not.
Some people put their faith in that being the correct possibility, but amusingly
such people often seem to be ashamed of their faith. Maybe they should be, but
if so then from my pov they should stop acting on it.

[mur@.not]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:30:44 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Le 2013-12-24 14:31, mur@.not a �crit :
>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>
>
>
>
>> If God does exist there is
>> plenty of evidence of it.
>
>Read your sentence again and see what's wrong with it.

You can't appreciate any of the evidence that persuaded people to believe in
God's existence. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you claim you can't
recognise it to the point of being unaware that it even exists. So you must
think billions of people all came up with the idea for no reason all without any
outside influence at all...LOL... Just describing your position is amusing.

[mur@.not]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 00:19:31 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:g7ojb9lf4bac7sohd...@4ax.com...
>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which
>> of
>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>> less
>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>
>Since there is no evidence, and since billions have believed in a god, the
>answer to your question is yes.
>
>If God does exist there is
>> plenty of evidence of it.
>
>Yet you are unable to provide any.
>
>If God does not exist there is nothing but false
>> evidence, but still enough of that to convince lots of people that he
>> does.
>
>False evidence? That is another way of saying no evidence.

It can't be both.

>> The atheist position encourages the question of how or what they WANT
>> God to
>> be.
>
>Of course you will be unable to explain how it encourages such a question.

If he exists you're not satisfied with how and what he is, so you must WANT
him to be different. Duh.

>If he does exist it's obvious that he deliberately doesn't provide proof of
>> his existence.
>
>So now you admit there is no evidence.

Pointing out that there's no proof is not the same as saying there's no
evidence. You should try to learn why that is on your own.

[mur@.not]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:25:37 -0500, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>course can't be the case
>
>Why not?
>
>> or no one would even consider the concept
>
>People consider all sorts of concepts for which there is no good
>evidence, or any evidence at all. I give you ESP, ghosts, UFO
>abductions, and any number of conspiracy theories (9/11 was an inside
>job, the Moon landings were faked) as just a few of many examples.

There's evidence for all that or no one would believe it.

>You're being hopelessly silly.
>
>>much less
>>would billions of people believe it to be true.
>
>Argumentum ad Populum? Seriously? That's such a boring logical
>fallacy.

It's a fact you don't happen to like.

>> If God does exist there is
>>plenty of evidence of it.
>
>List it here.

We're evidence. Life itself is evidence. The way bodies function is
evidence. Books telling us about him are evidence. Whether God exists or not
they're all evidence. Do you think they're "more" evidence if he does exist than
if he doesn't? Or do you think they're just as much evidence whether he exists
or not?

>> If God does not exist there is nothing but false
>>evidence, but still enough of that to convince lots of people that he does.
>
>What do you mean by "false evidence" here? Is some agent deliberately
>planting it, or do you mean that people might be wrongly interpreting
>phenomena they don't understand as evidence that a deity exists?

The latter.

[mur@.not]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>
wrote:

The fact that humans are so different from all other creatures is evidence.
If you can't recognise how different humans are, that alone makes the topic over
your head. And no, being able to recognise similarities does NOT mean it's
somehow within your grasp.

[mur@.not]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 11:30:57 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com> wrote:

>You might have been more helpful if you explained what
>honesty is, Christians and certain agnostics seem to have
>difficulty grasping that concept

So do atheists who deny the belief associated with strong atheism.

[felix_unger]

On 26-December-2013 12:12 PM, mur@.not wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:30:44 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> Le 2013-12-24 14:31, mur@.not a �crit :

>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If God does exist there is
>>> plenty of evidence of it.
>> Read your sentence again and see what's wrong with it.
> You can't appreciate any of the evidence that persuaded people to believe in
> God's existence. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you claim you can't
> recognise it to the point of being unaware that it even exists. So you must
> think billions of people all came up with the idea for no reason all without any
> outside influence at all...LOL... Just describing your position is amusing.

particularly so at this time of year when the whole world is celebrating
Christmas

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
�People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf�

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 20:09:58 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:06:18 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>>course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>>would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>
>> If there is a god then why do you need to provide proof? Why do you
>>need to convince, talk into, force people to believe one exists?
>>
>> If a god existed no proof would be needed. It would be apparent to
>>all humanity.
>
> How do you want people to think it would be.
>
>>Instead it's as if a god doesn't exist. Perfectly
>>doesn't exist.
>
> If he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does not.

Wut?

Holy shit! How could possibly know that?

>Some people put their faith in that being the correct possibility, but amusingly
>such people often seem to be ashamed of their faith.

Maybe it's because idiots like you pull excuses out of their ass
and call it 'gods' will. Perhaps they are ashamed because morons are
speaking for them and making wild assertions about things they can't
know.

> Maybe they should be, but
>if so then from my pov they should stop acting on it.

Still no evidence for a Magic Daddy. This is my point. You have to
go off bible and make stuff up and whine about it being proof.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Olrik]

Le 2013-12-25 20:13, mur@.not a �crit :

> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>>
>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>
>> If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
>> Convince us. Show us the way.
>
> The fact that humans are so different from all other creatures is evidence.

No, it's not.

Or maybe you mean that because the platypus is �so different from all
other creatures� it's evidence Zeus exists.

> If you can't recognise how different humans are, that alone makes the topic over
> your head. And no, being able to recognise similarities does NOT mean it's
> somehow within your grasp.
>

[Olrik]

Le 2013-12-25 20:12, mur@.not a �crit :

You wrote :

�If God does exist there is plenty of evidence of it.�

Please explain your sentence.

[SkyEyes]

mur@.not wrote in news:g7ojb9lf4bac7sohd...@4ax.com:

> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,

I'm 64 years old and have yet to see any.

> which of
> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept
> much less would billions of people believe it to be true.

Horsepucky. People believe all sorts of silly shit without the slightest
bit of evidence. Take as examples both homeopathy and alien abduction.

> If God does
> exist there is plenty of evidence of it.

Okay, so there's evidence. Please post it right here:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Take as much extra space as you need.

> If God does not exist there
> is nothing but false evidence, but still enough of that to convince
> lots of people that he does.

It's been my experience that the average person is uncritical,
unskeptical, and gullible to an extreme degree.

>
> The atheist position encourages the question of how or what they
> WANT God to
> be.

We don't want God to "be" anything. We're still waiting for evidence
that shows a god exists. So far, nothing.

If he does exist it's obvious that he deliberately doesn't provide
> proof of his existence.

So God is a trickster god. And you worship him...why, exactly?

> If he did things would be much different than
> they are, so if he wants things to be as they are he of course can't
> provide the proof atheists demand.

So he's a trickster. That's just lame.

I snipped the rest, because unless and until you can provide evidence
that some god actually exists, it's useless to speculate or enquire what
atheists "want God to be." That's like asking what color you want
Urgmungledorp to be. It's just silly.

--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Virgil]

In article <l9gd9e$12l$1...@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> >>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
> >>> which of
> >>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
> >>> less
> >>> would billions of people believe it to be true.

Fir years, most people believed in a flat earth despite the avaialbe
evidence aganist it.

And there are a lot of other fool beliefs that were once widely held
despite the existence of evidence against them.

So it is with belief in gods.
--

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4l0nb9921tjaf4eap...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>>
>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
>>> which of
>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>>> less
>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>
>> If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
>>Convince us. Show us the way.
>

> The fact that humans are so different from all other creatures is
> evidence.

It is evidence that we are different. Again you present a strange claim,
which you will be unable to defend.

> If you can't recognise how different humans are, that alone makes the
> topic over
> your head. And no, being able to recognise similarities does NOT mean it's
> somehow within your grasp.

No, gratuitous insults does not hide the fact that your above argument is
silly.

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:bl0nb9p60ko4ove53...@4ax.com...

Nobody has denied that such a belief exists. Thank you though for providing
yet another example of your dismissal of honesty.

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:5k0nb9hjcan8e33au...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 00:19:31 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
>>news:g7ojb9lf4bac7sohd...@4ax.com...
>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which
>>> of
>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>>> less
>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>
>>Since there is no evidence, and since billions have believed in a god, the
>>answer to your question is yes.
>>
>>If God does exist there is
>>> plenty of evidence of it.
>>
>>Yet you are unable to provide any.
>>
>>If God does not exist there is nothing but false
>>> evidence, but still enough of that to convince lots of people that he
>>> does.
>>
>>False evidence? That is another way of saying no evidence.
>
> It can't be both.

You bring inane word games to a new level. If one offers something as
evidence that is false, it is not evidence.

>
>>> The atheist position encourages the question of how or what they WANT
>>> God to
>>> be.
>>
>>Of course you will be unable to explain how it encourages such a question.
>

> If he exists you're not satisfied with how and what he is, so you must
> WANT
> him to be different. Duh.

Since I do not know that he exists, I cannot be dissatisfied with him.

>
>>If he does exist it's obvious that he deliberately doesn't provide proof
>>of
>>> his existence.
>>
>>So now you admit there is no evidence.
>
> Pointing out that there's no proof is not the same as saying there's no
> evidence. You should try to learn why that is on your own.
>

How very tedious you are. Are childish word games all you have? In that
case why not just go away?

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:af0nb99vtd40k5r2g...@4ax.com...

So you are amused by your silly lies. So what's new?

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
news:bi1elk...@mid.individual.net...

> On 26-December-2013 12:12 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:30:44 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>> Le 2013-12-24 14:31, mur@.not a �crit :

>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
>>>> which of
>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>>>> less
>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If God does exist there is
>>>> plenty of evidence of it.
>>> Read your sentence again and see what's wrong with it.
>> You can't appreciate any of the evidence that persuaded people to
>> believe in
>> God's existence. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you claim you
>> can't
>> recognise it to the point of being unaware that it even exists. So you
>> must
>> think billions of people all came up with the idea for no reason all
>> without any
>> outside influence at all...LOL... Just describing your position is
>> amusing.
>
> particularly so at this time of year when the whole world is celebrating
> Christmas

Whatever that means.

[thomas p.]

"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:l9gd9e$12l$1...@dont-email.me...

I do not think that would be possible.

[raven1]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 20:12:50 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:25:37 -0500, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>>course can't be the case
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>>> or no one would even consider the concept
>>
>>People consider all sorts of concepts for which there is no good
>>evidence, or any evidence at all. I give you ESP, ghosts, UFO
>>abductions, and any number of conspiracy theories (9/11 was an inside
>>job, the Moon landings were faked) as just a few of many examples.
>
> There's evidence for all that or no one would believe it.

Piffle.

>>You're being hopelessly silly.
>>
>>>much less
>>>would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>
>>Argumentum ad Populum? Seriously? That's such a boring logical
>>fallacy.
>
> It's a fact you don't happen to like.

What is?

>>> If God does exist there is
>>>plenty of evidence of it.
>>
>>List it here.
>
> We're evidence. Life itself is evidence. The way bodies function is
>evidence. Books telling us about him are evidence. Whether God exists or not
>they're all evidence. Do you think they're "more" evidence if he does exist than
>if he doesn't? Or do you think they're just as much evidence whether he exists
>or not?

You appear to be hopelessly confused, so there's little point in my
reading further. Good day, sir.

[mur@.not]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 09:21:53 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:bl0nb9p60ko4ove53...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 11:30:57 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You might have been more helpful if you explained what
>>>honesty is, Christians and certain agnostics seem to have
>>>difficulty grasping that concept
>>
>> So do atheists who deny the belief associated with strong atheism.
>
>
>Nobody has denied that such a belief exists.

"I am glad that you realize that there are no such thing as atheist beliefs.
It took long enough." - thomas p

[mur@.not]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 09:26:28 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:5k0nb9hjcan8e33au...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 00:19:31 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>news:g7ojb9lf4bac7sohd...@4ax.com...
>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which
>>>> of
>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>>>> less
>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>
>>>Since there is no evidence, and since billions have believed in a god, the
>>>answer to your question is yes.
>>>
>>>If God does exist there is
>>>> plenty of evidence of it.
>>>
>>>Yet you are unable to provide any.
>>>
>>>If God does not exist there is nothing but false
>>>> evidence, but still enough of that to convince lots of people that he
>>>> does.
>>>
>>>False evidence? That is another way of saying no evidence.
>>
>> It can't be both.
>
>You bring inane word games to a new level. If one offers something as
>evidence that is false, it is not evidence.

Evidence is evidence whether it's false or correct.

>>>> The atheist position encourages the question of how or what they WANT
>>>> God to
>>>> be.
>>>
>>>Of course you will be unable to explain how it encourages such a question.
>>
>
>> If he exists you're not satisfied with how and what he is, so you must
>> WANT
>> him to be different. Duh.
>
>Since I do not know that he exists, I cannot be dissatisfied with him.

So if he does exist you are satisfied with the evidence he allows of his
existence, even though it's not enough to let you "know that he exists".

>>>If he does exist it's obvious that he deliberately doesn't provide proof
>>>of
>>>> his existence.
>>>
>>>So now you admit there is no evidence.
>>
>> Pointing out that there's no proof is not the same as saying there's no
>> evidence. You should try to learn why that is on your own.
>>
>
>How very tedious you are. Are childish word games all you have?

I point out things people should take into consideration but fail to.

>In that case why not just go away?

Why not just try to learn why pointing out that there's no proof is not the
same as saying there's no evidence?

[mur@.not]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 19:57:18 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 20:09:58 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:06:18 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>>>course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>>>would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>
>>> If there is a god then why do you need to provide proof? Why do you
>>>need to convince, talk into, force people to believe one exists?
>>>
>>> If a god existed no proof would be needed. It would be apparent to
>>>all humanity.
>>
>> How do you want people to think it would be.
>>
>>>Instead it's as if a god doesn't exist. Perfectly
>>>doesn't exist.
>>
>> If he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does not.
>
> Wut?
>
> Holy shit! How could possibly know that?

Because if he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does
not. Duh.

>>Some people put their faith in that being the correct possibility, but amusingly
>>such people often seem to be ashamed of their faith.
>
> Maybe it's because idiots like you pull excuses out of their ass
>and call it 'gods' will.

If that's true, why does it make other people ashamed?

>Perhaps they are ashamed because morons are
>speaking for them and making wild assertions about things they can't
>know.

There's nothing wild about anything I pointed out.

>> Maybe they should be, but
>>if so then from my pov they should stop acting on it.
>
> Still no evidence for a Magic Daddy. This is my point. You have to
>go off bible and make stuff up and whine about it being proof.

Provide a quote of me saying anything is proof, or it will be obvious that
you can't even pretend to have any idea what you're lying about.

[mur@.not]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:21:51 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:

>On 26-December-2013 12:12 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:30:44 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>> Le 2013-12-24 14:31, mur@.not a �crit :

>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If God does exist there is
>>>> plenty of evidence of it.
>>> Read your sentence again and see what's wrong with it.
>> You can't appreciate any of the evidence that persuaded people to believe in
>> God's existence. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you claim you can't
>> recognise it to the point of being unaware that it even exists. So you must
>> think billions of people all came up with the idea for no reason all without any
>> outside influence at all...LOL... Just describing your position is amusing.
>
>particularly so at this time of year when the whole world is celebrating
>Christmas

It seems idiotic to think all those people just happened to come up with the
idea, each person on his/her own, with there never having been any evidence of
God's existence.

[mur@.not]

If God exists the evidence that he does is correct. If God doesn't exist the
evidence that he does is false.

[mur@.not]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 00:47:29 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>In article <l9gd9e$12l$1...@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
>> >>> which of
>> >>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>> >>> less
>> >>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>
>Fir years, most people believed in a flat earth despite the avaialbe
>evidence aganist it.

That's because of the evidence that it was true.

>And there are a lot of other fool beliefs that were once widely held
>despite the existence of evidence against them.

The claim I oppose is that there's no evidence for the beliefs, not that
there's no evidence that the evidence for them is false.

>So it is with belief in gods.

What evidence is there that God doesn't exist?

[mur@.not]

Explain what part(s) of what I pointed out is/are not true, and why anyone
should believe it's/they're not true.

[mur@.not]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 23:55:15 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Le 2013-12-25 20:13, mur@.not a �crit :
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>>
>>> If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
>>> Convince us. Show us the way.
>>
>> The fact that humans are so different from all other creatures is evidence.
>
>No, it's not.

Yes it is.

>Or maybe you mean that because the platypus is �so different from all
>other creatures� it's evidence Zeus exists.

Maybe it is. How do you think it might be?

[mur@.not]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 09:20:33 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:4l0nb9921tjaf4eap...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
>>>> which of
>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>>>> less
>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>>
>>> If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
>>>Convince us. Show us the way.
>>
>
>> The fact that humans are so different from all other creatures is
>> evidence.
>
>It is evidence that we are different. Again you present a strange claim,
>which you will be unable to defend.

I can defend it by saying it's evidence that something had a strong
influence specifically by humans, and that the something may very well have been
an intelligent being or intelligent beings. Whether they did or not, it's still
evidence that something might have.

>> If you can't recognise how different humans are, that alone makes the
>> topic over
>> your head. And no, being able to recognise similarities does NOT mean it's
>> somehow within your grasp.
>
>No, gratuitous insults does not hide the fact that your above argument is
>silly.

It's a fact. If the fact is insulting that's not my fault, nor should I feel
bad about pointing it out for people.

[duke]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>
> If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
>Convince us. Show us the way.

Creation.

duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****

[duke]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 00:19:31 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen

>news:g7ojb9lf4bac7sohd...@4ax.com...

>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which
>> of
>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>> less
>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>

>Since there is no evidence, and since billions have believed in a god, the
>answer to your question is yes.
>

>If God does exist there is
>> plenty of evidence of it.
>

>Yet you are unable to provide any.

[duke]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:06:18 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:31:00 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>

>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>would billions of people believe it to be true.
>

> If there is a god then why do you need to provide proof? Why do you
>need to convince, talk into, force people to believe one exists?

God does.

> If a god existed no proof would be needed. It would be apparent to

>all humanity. Instead it's as if a god doesn't exist. Perfectly
>doesn't exist.
>
>Warlord Steve
>BAAWA

[felix_unger]

On 27-December-2013 10:42 AM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>

> wrote:
>
>> On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>
>> If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
>> Convince us. Show us the way.
> Creation.

That's more like evidence against the existence of God, because if God
created the world as it is, we must conclude that God intended humans to
suffer and die painfully and/or horribly from disease or natural
disasters, or to be born with grotesque disfigurements (such as:
http://tinyurl.com/kswcpr4 ) and live a life of misery, assuming they
survive at all of course.

>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
> proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
> will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
> *****

[Witziges Rätsel]

On 12/26/2013 6:42 PM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>>
>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>
>> If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
>> Convince us. Show us the way.
>
> Creation.
>

The universe might well have been created through the interactions of
atoms and gravity. Its existence does not verify the existence of a god.
Try again; we're not convinced.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:

> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
> which of course can't be the case or no one would even consider the
> concept much less would billions of people believe it to be true.

Millions of people believe lots of things not only without evidence but
often in the face of considerable contrary evidence.
At one time many people believed the Earth was flat, and at another
time, many believed the the earth was the center of the universe with
the sun, moon, planes and stars each on a different invisible sphere
rotating around Earth.

So the ability of large groups of people to believe in things which are
provably not true has been publicly demonstrated far too often to be
refuted.

[felix_unger]

On 27-December-2013 8:36 AM, mur@.not wrote:
-------------------

> The claim I oppose is that there's no evidence for the beliefs, not that
> there's no evidence that the evidence for them is false.

-------------------

> If God exists the evidence that he does is correct. If God doesn't exist the
> evidence that he does is false.

-------------------

It's amazing that intelligent ppl have to have these things explained to
them. one has to have doubts about their intellectual honesty.

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 16:35:50 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 19:57:18 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>

>>>
>>> If he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does not.
>>
>> Wut?
>>
>> Holy shit! How could possibly know that?
>
> Because if he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does
>not. Duh.
>

And you know this...how?

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Olrik]

Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

> On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 23:55:15 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 2013-12-25 20:13, mur@.not a �crit :
>>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:15:58 -0500, Witziges R�tsel <z...@roer.invalid.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/24/2013 2:31 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
>>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
>>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>>>
>>>> If there's evidence of the existence of a god, please bring it.
>>>> Convince us. Show us the way.
>>>
>>> The fact that humans are so different from all other creatures is evidence.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>
> Yes it is.

We're animals. We're born, we live, reproduce and we die.

>> Or maybe you mean that because the platypus is �so different from all
>> other creatures� it's evidence Zeus exists.
>
> Maybe it is. How do you think it might be?

Eliza? Is that you?

>>> If you can't recognise how different humans are, that alone makes the topic over
>>> your head. And no, being able to recognise similarities does NOT mean it's
>>> somehow within your grasp.
>>>

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

[Olrik]

Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

You have trouble with the word �evidence�, evidently...

If not, then you're an atheist.

[Olrik]

Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

The very same evidence you must have to deny the very existence of The
Mighty Thor.

[Dreamer In Colore]

"Puny God".

The Incredible Hulk in The Avengers, talking about The Mighty Thor.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

"The more stupid the man, the larger his stock of adamantine
assurances, the heavier his load of faith."

H.L. Mencken

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Until al the many competing theist religious groups with their different
takes on what gods are can agree, why try to drag atheist into it?

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:va8pb9pqs93oq77rc...@4ax.com...

Wow!

>
>>> If you can't recognise how different humans are, that alone makes the
>>> topic over
>>> your head. And no, being able to recognise similarities does NOT mean
>>> it's
>>> somehow within your grasp.
>>
>>No, gratuitous insults does not hide the fact that your above argument is
>>silly.
>
> It's a fact. If the fact is insulting that's not my fault, nor should I
> feel
> bad about pointing it out for people.

You make assertions. You respond to criticism with childish insults. You
have nothing.

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:098pb9t6vjnvbsut7...@4ax.com...

Yes I said that. Why did you leave out the rest of what I said?

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:798pb9t4s965e4iup...@4ax.com...

And you just continue with your silly misrepresentations. Shame really.

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:p98pb9d1om8tp8kkj...@4ax.com...

Why would that be idiotic? There are all kinds of motivations to come up
with explanations of natural phenomena, of existence itself. Some
mysterious power or powers served well espcially the priests/rulers who used
such beliefs for their own ends.

[SkyEyes]

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:gg4qb99ji6vkvhj9g...@4ax.com:

Actually, he was talking about Loki, whom he had just picked up by the
ankles and used to thwack the pavement with several times. Poor Loki
was...somewhat indisposed after Hulk's treatment of him.

--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[thomas p.]

<mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
news:aa8pb9pic00tnvgss...@4ax.com...

No.

[thomas p.]

"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:52bd2067$0$6961$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

A short remark to the above:

One would think that it would not take great intelligence to understand that
saying there are no atheist beliefs is not the same as saying atheists have
no beliefs. Of course, in addition to at least a little understanding of
your own language, some honesty would also be required. Too much to hope
for apparently.

[thomas p.]

"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

We have many places here named after Thor. Naturally that is evidence that
he is real, as are the many people throughout Northern Europe who once
believed in him, since they would not have done so without evidence.

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

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 07:49:55 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>

Perfect.

--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <52bd7bca$0$6974$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,

Hell, we have an entire day named for Thor.

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

[Dakota]

And none for Jesus. No months either. Rational people have also
abandoned the AD and BC reference to a fictitious storybook character.
CE and BCE rule now.

According to the Jewish calendar, the current year is 5774. Damn. I
keep writing 5773 on my checks.

[Kadaitcha Man]

On 25/12/13 06:31, mur@.not wrote:
> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
> would billions of people believe it to be true.

Your first sentence is complete and utter crap. What you wrote after
that must also be downright crap.

The human psyche is structured for the belief in gods; this arose out of
man's very early past when there were many dangers and no rational
explanations for everyday events such as lightning, drought and so on.
It follows then that since there are no monsters hiding under the bed to
be afraid of, and because there are valid rational explanations for
everything we encounter in our daily lives, the belief in gods no longer
has any real purpose.

The corollary is, just because 90.3333333333333% of people believe in
gods it does not follow that there are any gods.

As for evidence of gods, there is none. 6.3 billion people choosing to
allow their fearful, backwards psyche to determine their belief system,
leaving ~700,000,000 unbelievers, is evidence only of there being a
severe shortage of people who can think critically and for themselves.

[felix_unger]

On 28-December-2013 2:16 PM, Dakota wrote:

> On 12/27/2013 8:50 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <52bd7bca$0$6974$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

so now you're claiming there's no evidence that Jesus existed?

> CE and BCE rule now.
>
> According to the Jewish calendar, the current year is 5774. Damn. I
> keep writing 5773 on my checks.
>

[felix_unger]

On 28-December-2013 12:08 AM, thomas p. wrote:

> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

they had evidence.. thunder and lightning

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


--

[Virgil]

In article <bi72ll...@mid.individual.net>,

felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:

> so now you're claiming there's no evidence that Jesus existed?

No more so that for the holiness of Buddha.
--

[felix_unger]

proof of that

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <bi7avp...@mid.individual.net>,
felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:

Until all you different flavors of theist beeivers with your different
and incompatible gods can agree on which, if any,of them are real
instead of each claiming a different one or different set of them, why
should anyone pay any attention to any of your claims?

[thomas p.]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hlwdjsd2-B74DBC...@news.giganews.com...

Did you know that Thor delivered presents to children. He landed his goat
drawn cart on the roofs of houses to do it. Sound familiar?

>
> --
>
> JD
>
> "If our country is going broke, let it be from
> feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
> And not from pampering the rich and fighting
> wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
news:bi72ll...@mid.individual.net...

> On 28-December-2013 2:16 PM, Dakota wrote:
>
>> On 12/27/2013 8:50 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <52bd7bca$0$6974$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
>>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

He did? Where? Certainly not in his above statement. Furthermore possible
historical evidence (very little if any) for the existence of a particular
person is far from being evidence for his claimed divinity.


snip

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen

news:bi7avp...@mid.individual.net...

> On 28-December-2013 5:09 PM, Virgil wrote:
>> In article <bi72ll...@mid.individual.net>,
>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:
>>
>>> so now you're claiming there's no evidence that Jesus existed?
>> No more so that for the holiness of Buddha.
>
>
> proof of that

How very silly - not to mention dishonest.

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen

news:bi72pn...@mid.individual.net...

> On 28-December-2013 12:08 AM, thomas p. wrote:
>
>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

Which was evidence for thunder and lightning not their cause.

[felix_unger]

On 28-December-2013 7:20 PM, thomas p. wrote:
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:bi72ll...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 28-December-2013 2:16 PM, Dakota wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/27/2013 8:50 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article <52bd7bca$0$6974$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
>>>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

certainly did, by saying 'fictitious storybook character'

> Furthermore possible
> historical evidence (very little if any) for the existence of a particular
> person is far from being evidence for his claimed divinity.

who said it is?

[felix_unger]

On 28-December-2013 7:21 PM, thomas p. wrote:
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:bi7avp...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 28-December-2013 5:09 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>> In article <bi72ll...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> so now you're claiming there's no evidence that Jesus existed?
>>> No more so that for the holiness of Buddha.
>>
>> proof of that
>
> How very silly - not to mention dishonest.
>
>

what are you babbling about? did you or did you not say that there is no
more evidence that Jesus existed than that Buddha did?

[felix_unger]

On 28-December-2013 7:22 PM, thomas p. wrote:
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:bi72pn...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 28-December-2013 12:08 AM, thomas p. wrote:
>>
>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

How can thunder and lightning be evidence for thunder and lightning?
thunder and lightning is evidence of a cause of thunder and lightning.

[Virgil]

Until all you theists in all your varied competing theist religions can
agree on what YOU want your god or gods to be, which clearly is not yet
even close to happening, there is no point in your trying to get
atheists to agree on what you theists cannot even agree on yourselves.
--

[Virgil]

Until ALL you theists in all your incompatible theist religions can
agree on what YOU want YOUR god or gods to be, which clearly is not yet

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <bi7gb9...@mid.individual.net>,

felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:

> On 28-December-2013 7:21 PM, thomas p. wrote:
> > "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
> > news:bi7avp...@mid.individual.net...
> >> On 28-December-2013 5:09 PM, Virgil wrote:
> >>> In article <bi72ll...@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> so now you're claiming there's no evidence that Jesus existed?
> >>> No more so that for the holiness of Buddha.
> >>
> >> proof of that
> >
> > How very silly - not to mention dishonest.
> >
> >
>
> what are you babbling about? did you or did you not say that there is no
> more evidence that Jesus existed than that Buddha did?

It appears to have been written by "Virgil" rather than "thomas p",
so that "felix_unger" seems to have problems with reading.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Until all you theists in all your varied competing theist religions can
agree on what YOU want your god or gods to be, which clearly is not yet

[felix_unger]

Some atheists are foolish enough to assume that any non-atheist
discussing these matters is a proponent of some religion. that is
certainly not being Wisely Non-Theist !

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/12/2013 6:31 AM, mur@.not wrote:
> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists, which of
> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much less
> would billions of people believe it to be true.

I can't follow that line of reasoning. Please explain it in more detail.

Sylvia.

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen

news:bi7gb9...@mid.individual.net...

> On 28-December-2013 7:21 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:bi7avp...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 28-December-2013 5:09 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>> In article <bi72ll...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> so now you're claiming there's no evidence that Jesus existed?
>>>> No more so that for the holiness of Buddha.
>>>
>>> proof of that
>>
>> How very silly - not to mention dishonest.
>>
>>
>
> what are you babbling about? did you or did you not say that there is no
> more evidence that Jesus existed than that Buddha did?

No. I am the one pointing out that your response was silly and dishonest.

>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> �People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough men stand ready
> to do violence on their behalf�

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen

news:bi7g6t...@mid.individual.net...

> On 28-December-2013 7:20 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:bi72ll...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 28-December-2013 2:16 PM, Dakota wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/27/2013 8:50 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> In article <52bd7bca$0$6974$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
>>>>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

That does not mean that a real Jesus did not exist, only that the gospels
are fiction.

>
>> Furthermore possible
>> historical evidence (very little if any) for the existence of a
>> particular
>> person is far from being evidence for his claimed divinity.
>
> who said it is?

Ah good, you have no objection then.

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen

news:bi7gir...@mid.individual.net...

> On 28-December-2013 7:22 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:bi72pn...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 28-December-2013 12:08 AM, thomas p. wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

But not any particular cause, and that was quite obviously my point.

>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> �People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough men stand ready
> to do violence on their behalf�

[Dakota]

Christians disagree on their god's attributes and intentions to such a
degree that they used to wage wars against each other over the
discrepancies. Now they just call each other heretics. They do,
however, agree that all non-Christian religions are false.

It's often been accurately said about religions that they can't all be
right but they can all be wrong.

<paranormal group trimmed>

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <bi7m6j...@mid.individual.net>,

felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:

> On 28-December-2013 8:23 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > Until all you theists in all your varied competing theist religions can
> > agree on what YOU want your god or gods to be, which clearly is not yet
> > even close to happening, there is no point in your trying to get
> > atheists to agree on what you theists cannot even agree on yourselves.
>
> Some atheists are foolish enough to assume that any non-atheist
> discussing these matters is a proponent of some religion. that is
> certainly not being Wisely Non-Theist !

To be non-atheist means to be non-non-theist, which in standard logic
comes out theist. This does not necessarily imply any particular flavor
of theism such as some formal religion, but does imply a belief in some
sort of god or gods.

[felix_unger]

On 29-December-2013 1:11 AM, thomas p. wrote:
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:bi7g6t...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 28-December-2013 7:20 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:bi72ll...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 28-December-2013 2:16 PM, Dakota wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/27/2013 8:50 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>> In article <52bd7bca$0$6974$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
>>>>>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

he said 'the AD and BC reference to a fictitious storybook character'. since AD/BC relate to Jesus, he's saying that Jesus is fictitious, not the 'storybook'

>
>>> Furthermore possible
>>> historical evidence (very little if any) for the existence of a
>>> particular
>>> person is far from being evidence for his claimed divinity.
>> who said it is?
> Ah good, you have no objection then.

of course. suppose I say my cousin visited me on Christmas day. whether
he did or not is irrelevant to whether or not my cousin is a real
person. likewise whether Jesus performed miracles or not is irrelevant
to whether he existed. they're separate issues.

[felix_unger]

On 29-December-2013 1:16 AM, thomas p. wrote:
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:bi7gir...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 28-December-2013 7:22 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:bi72pn...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 28-December-2013 12:08 AM, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

It wasn't obvious, to me at least, but yes, I agree



--
rgds,

Pete
-------
�People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf�

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen

news:bi93kr...@mid.individual.net...

> On 29-December-2013 1:11 AM, thomas p. wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:bi7g6t...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 28-December-2013 7:20 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>> news:bi72ll...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 28-December-2013 2:16 PM, Dakota wrote:

snip

>>>>>>>> We have many places here named after Thor. Naturally that is
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> he is real, as are the many people throughout Northern Europe who
>>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>> believed in him, since they would not have done so without
>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>> Hell, we have an entire day named for Thor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And none for Jesus. No months either. Rational people have also
>>>>>> abandoned
>>>>>> the AD and BC reference to a fictitious storybook character.
>>>>> so now you're claiming there's no evidence that Jesus existed?
>>>> He did? Where? Certainly not in his above statement.
>>> certainly did, by saying 'fictitious storybook character'
>> That does not mean that a real Jesus did not exist, only that the gospels
>> are fiction.
>
> he said 'the AD and BC reference to a fictitious storybook character'.
> since AD/BC relate to Jesus, he's saying that Jesus is fictitious, not the
> 'storybook'

The character in the book is fictitious, and that character is referred to
by AD/BC.

>
>>
>>>> Furthermore possible
>>>> historical evidence (very little if any) for the existence of a
>>>> particular
>>>> person is far from being evidence for his claimed divinity.
>>> who said it is?
>> Ah good, you have no objection then.
>
> of course. suppose I say my cousin visited me on Christmas day. whether he
> did or not is irrelevant to whether or not my cousin is a real person.
> likewise whether Jesus performed miracles or not is irrelevant to whether
> he existed. they're separate issues.

It is very relevant to the question of whether or not the stories are
fictitious or not.

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen

news:bi93pp...@mid.individual.net...

> On 29-December-2013 1:16 AM, thomas p. wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:bi7gir...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 28-December-2013 7:22 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>> news:bi72pn...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 28-December-2013 12:08 AM, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>> news:l9j1ua$s6f$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>>> Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :

Then we can expect you to stop referring to such phenomena as evidence for a
particular cause?

[Virgil]

Until all theists can agree on what they think gods are and want them to
be, why should atheists want anything to do with it?
--

[felix_unger]

On 29-December-2013 8:00 PM, Virgil wrote:
> Until all theists can agree on what they think gods are and want them to
> be, why should atheists want anything to do with it?

atheists can't avoid theism because atheism is defined by theism!! it's
not a-nothing, it's a-theism!

[Les Hellawell]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:00:10 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>Until all theists can agree on what they think gods are and want them to
>be, why should atheists want anything to do with it?

That is right, the moment you start to decide what you want a god
to be you are into the realms of wishful thinking or fantasy and just
simply making one up.

Whilst that might be fun to do as a a'parlour game' on Family Day'
(25th December) it serves no useful purpose plus
there is the danger of sinking into a belief it really exists and
bcoming obsessed with it making up things it has done. There is
also the problem of explianing why only you can 'see' or perceive
it.

So let us play the game - just for fun:

What would I like a god to be?

Well for starters it would live in a small bottle that I can
carry around in my pocket. If I stroke the bottle it will
emerge in a cloud of smoke all green then turn to me
all irritated and say 'Wot now?"

(Which is much more modern than bowing and saying
'What is your wish oh master')

There will be no limit of three wishes and the bottle will
only ever respond to my touch and always return to me
if I lose it or it is stolen from me by a Christian.

It would of course be able to do anything I wished for.
One hundred Virgins? - No problem. Make all Christians forget
they are Chistians - yep. A large luxury private Yacht to
explore the Scottish Islands in - Absolutely. Make me
young again - oh Joy. The brain of Leonardo da Vinci
combined with the genius of Mozart - oh yes! The ability
to play the piano better than Idil Biret - Wonderful!

Now that would be a real god and no way would I
want anybody else to share it with me. Let them wish
into existence their own god just as long as mine
remains supreme to theirs :-)

Top that :-)

--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen

news:bia9oq...@mid.individual.net...

> On 29-December-2013 8:00 PM, Virgil wrote:
>> Until all theists can agree on what they think gods are and want them to
>> be, why should atheists want anything to do with it?
>
> atheists can't avoid theism because atheism is defined by theism!! it's
> not a-nothing, it's a-theism!

And being bald is defined by the presence of hair. You have really
discovered a deep truth here.


>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> �People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough men stand ready
> to do violence on their behalf�

[mur@.not]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:03:52 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:52bd2067$0$6961$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>> <mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:098pb9t6vjnvbsut7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 09:21:53 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>news:bl0nb9p60ko4ove53...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 11:30:57 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You might have been more helpful if you explained what
>>>>>>honesty is, Christians and certain agnostics seem to have
>>>>>>difficulty grasping that concept
>>>>>
>>>>> So do atheists who deny the belief associated with strong atheism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nobody has denied that such a belief exists.
>>>
>>> "I am glad that you realize that there are no such thing as atheist
>>> beliefs.
>>> It took long enough." - thomas p
>>
>>
>> Yes I said that. Why did you leave out the rest of what I said?
>
>A short remark to the above:
>
>One would think that it would not take great intelligence to understand that
>saying there are no atheist beliefs is not the same as saying atheists have
>no beliefs. Of course, in addition to at least a little understanding of
>your own language, some honesty would also be required. Too much to hope
>for apparently.

Strong atheism is an atheist belief, but such honesty from you is too much
to hope for apparently.

[mur@.not]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 07:39:53 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen

>news:798pb9t4s965e4iup...@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 09:26:28 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen

>>>news:5k0nb9hjcan8e33au...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 00:19:31 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen

>>>>>news:g7ojb9lf4bac7sohd...@4ax.com...

>>>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>>>

>>>>>Since there is no evidence, and since billions have believed in a god,
>>>>>the
>>>>>answer to your question is yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>If God does exist there is
>>>>>> plenty of evidence of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet you are unable to provide any.
>>>>>
>>>>>If God does not exist there is nothing but false
>>>>>> evidence, but still enough of that to convince lots of people that he
>>>>>> does.
>>>>>
>>>>>False evidence? That is another way of saying no evidence.
>>>>
>>>> It can't be both.
>>>
>>>You bring inane word games to a new level. If one offers something as
>>>evidence that is false, it is not evidence.
>>
>> Evidence is evidence whether it's false or correct.
>>
>>>>>> The atheist position encourages the question of how or what they
>>>>>> WANT
>>>>>> God to
>>>>>> be.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course you will be unable to explain how it encourages such a
>>>>>question.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> If he exists you're not satisfied with how and what he is, so you
>>>> must
>>>> WANT
>>>> him to be different. Duh.
>>>
>>>Since I do not know that he exists, I cannot be dissatisfied with him.
>>
>> So if he does exist you are satisfied with the evidence he allows of
>> his
>> existence, even though it's not enough to let you "know that he exists".
>>
>>>>>If he does exist it's obvious that he deliberately doesn't provide proof
>>>>>of
>>>>>> his existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>So now you admit there is no evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Pointing out that there's no proof is not the same as saying there's
>>>> no
>>>> evidence. You should try to learn why that is on your own.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How very tedious you are. Are childish word games all you have?
>>
>> I point out things people should take into consideration but fail to.
>>
>>>In that case why not just go away?
>>
>> Why not just try to learn why pointing out that there's no proof is not
>> the
>> same as saying there's no evidence?
>
>
>And you just continue with your silly misrepresentations. Shame really.

It's a shame that you can't appreciate the fact that saying there's no proof
and saying there's no evidence are not the same thing. So taking it much farther
than you'll probably ever be able to comprehend, sometimes things that appear to
be proof are in fact false evidence. That's an aspect I've been aware of for
decades but you'll probably never understand.

[mur@.not]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:56:49 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 16:35:50 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 19:57:18 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>>
>
>>>>
>>>> If he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does not.
>>>
>>> Wut?
>>>
>>> Holy shit! How could possibly know that?
>>
>> Because if he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does
>>not. Duh.
>>
> And you know this...how?

Because if he exists, he allows us to consider the possibility that he does
not. Duh.

[mur@.not]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 07:47:53 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

><mur@.not> skrev i meddelelsen

>news:p98pb9d1om8tp8kkj...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:21:51 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:
>>
>>>On 26-December-2013 12:12 PM, mur@.not wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:30:44 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 2013-12-24 14:31, mur@.not a �crit :

>>>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
>>>>>> which of
>>>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept
>>>>>> much less
>>>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>> If God does exist there is
>>>>>> plenty of evidence of it.

>>>>> Read your sentence again and see what's wrong with it.
>>>> You can't appreciate any of the evidence that persuaded people to
>>>> believe in
>>>> God's existence. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you claim you
>>>> can't
>>>> recognise it to the point of being unaware that it even exists. So you
>>>> must
>>>> think billions of people all came up with the idea for no reason all
>>>> without any
>>>> outside influence at all...LOL... Just describing your position is
>>>> amusing.
>>>
>>>particularly so at this time of year when the whole world is celebrating
>>>Christmas
>>
>> It seems idiotic to think all those people just happened to come up
>> with the
>> idea, each person on his/her own, with there never having been any
>> evidence of
>> God's existence.
>
>
>Why would that be idiotic?

It's too unlikely. There would have to be more to it than just that.

>There are all kinds of motivations to come up
>with explanations of natural phenomena, of existence itself. Some
>mysterious power or powers served well espcially the priests/rulers who used
>such beliefs for their own ends.

That doesn't prevent God from existing though I'm sure it resulted in a lot
more evidence that he does, manufactured by humans in order to take advantage of
the concept.

[mur@.not]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:07:21 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
>Le 2013-12-26 16:36, mur@.not a �crit :
>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 00:47:29 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <l9gd9e$12l$1...@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>>>>> Aetheists like to believe there is no evidence that God exists,
>>>>>>> which of
>>>>>>> course can't be the case or no one would even consider the concept much
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>> would billions of people believe it to be true.
>>>

>>> Fir years, most people believed in a flat earth despite the avaialbe
>>> evidence aganist it.
>>
>> That's because of the evidence that it was true.
>>
>>> And there are a lot of other fool beliefs that were once widely held
>>> despite the existence of evidence against them.
>>
>> The claim I oppose is that there's no evidence for the beliefs, not that
>> there's no evidence that the evidence for them is false.
>>
>>> So it is with belief in gods.
>>
>> What evidence is there that God doesn't exist?
>
>The very same evidence you must have to deny the very existence of The
>Mighty Thor.

I can probably consider more evidence that God "doesn't exist" than you can
if that's the "best" you can do with it. BUT! I can also consider more evidence
that he does exist than you can, and certainly can consider the possibility that
he does better than you'll probably ever be able to.