Are your loved ones going to suffer an endless torment in hell?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 5:36:00 AM3/17/06
to
There you are the only Christian in your family. You are saved to live in
endless joy and happiness, and your father, mother, brother, sister, or your
spouse are all bound for an endless eternity suffering the pains of hell,
which are likened to the torment of fire and brimstone.

It's a wonder believing this doctrine that you can ever hope to have any joy
and peace.

This doctrine ought to bother you. I know, you might say when you get to
heaven you won't be be bothered about your loved ones suffering in hell.
You will see things differently then. That's the best argument given so you
might feel good. But actually we don't need that argument because the
doctrine of mainstream Christianity about hell is wrong. It's the best that
man can come up with to sooth you given the little that is said about our
afterlife in the Bible.

Hell is a terrible place, it's a spiritual death. Mental and emotional
anguish will be so bad that it's likened to suffering the pains of fire and
brimstone And many shall taste of that torment. But for the overwhelmingly
vast majority of people who fail to receive Jesus in this life, they will
not spend an eternity in hell, but shall be released after they have paid
the penalty for their own sins. After they have paid the penalty for their
own sins, they shall inherit a reward. They shall live forever in peace and
joy and be servants of the most high God. They will not have the same glory
or rewards as the faithful, but they will be heirs of salvation
never-the-less. What is meant is that they, unlike Satan and his angels,
shall not be consigned to an eternity in hell. They shall come out of hell,
just like king David.

So, if it's ever bothered you about your loved ones facing an endless
eternity suffering the pains of hell, know and rejoice that this is not so.
There are many mansions in the kingdom of God and God has a place prepared
for your unbelieving loved ones to live in joy and happiness. Put it this
way, even the least glorious of the mansions in the Fathers kingdom is
vastly superior to anything on this earth.

This is not said just to make you feel good. It's true.

Debbie

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 6:36:54 AM3/17/06
to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:36:00 -0000, "Richard"
<madeupy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>There you are the only Christian in your family.

<snip>


>So, if it's ever bothered you about your loved ones facing an endless
>eternity suffering the pains of hell, know and rejoice that this is not so.
>There are many mansions in the kingdom of God and God has a place prepared
>for your unbelieving loved ones to live in joy and happiness. Put it this
>way, even the least glorious of the mansions in the Fathers kingdom is
>vastly superior to anything on this earth.

Or, as one of my students once wrote in an essay (one of my favourite
typos ever): "Jesus brings salvation in some manor".

--
Debbie posting as Debbie

Paul Dean

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 6:36:42 AM3/17/06
to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:36:00 +0200, Richard <madeupy...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> So, if it's ever bothered you about your loved ones facing an endless
> eternity suffering the pains of hell, know and rejoice that this is not
> so.
> There are many mansions in the kingdom of God and God has a place
> prepared
> for your unbelieving loved ones to live in joy and happiness. Put it this
> way, even the least glorious of the mansions in the Fathers kingdom is
> vastly superior to anything on this earth.

You were saying recently how salvation is caused by good works. How is
this consistent with believing that the worst of works still get you a
place better than anything we have on earth?

--
Paul
http://www.orphancare.org.za/

blunthermit

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 6:43:41 AM3/17/06
to
The first part sounds like "The divine relevation of hell" by Mary K.
Baxter.

However, IMHO, the concept of hell shouldn't really be the focus of
Christianity as some might use this [doctrine] as an instrument to
frighten non-believers into believing Christianity. It's not wrong, but
then again it is not encouraged.

The ministry of Jesus was about Love & Forgiveness, and acceptance of
you in Heaven with God through Him Christ Jesus. And that is what, I
think, we should be preaching about.

Richard

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 8:12:22 AM3/17/06
to
"Paul Dean" <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote in message
news:op.s6j2gut8wpdz4z@paul...


You don't really have the correct world-view to understand.

But here we go:

All persons who are born on earth, kept their first estate. What that means
is, that we lived in heaven before being born here on earth, and we chose
God's plan for man over Satan's. Satan and his followers kept not their
first estate. (Jude 1:6). Unless we become sons of Perdition here on earth,
by seeking to make God our enemy, then we were promised a reward for keeping
our first estate and agreeing to face the difficulties of mortality. That
reward was a physical body and a degree of glory in the Father's kingdom.
But for the unbeliever, not until after having paid for his/her own sins in
hell for a season.

philip....@ntlworld.com

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 8:34:53 AM3/17/06
to
Richard wrote:

> There you are the only Christian in your family. You are saved to live in
> endless joy and happiness, and your father, mother, brother, sister, or your
> spouse are all bound for an endless eternity suffering the pains of hell,
> which are likened to the torment of fire and brimstone.

OK I guess if you believe that then you are entitled to

> It's a wonder believing this doctrine that you can ever hope to have any joy
> and peace.

You mean you dont believe it? Oh ok.

> This doctrine ought to bother you.

Why should it bother me when the Mormon doctrines dont bother you?

> I know, you might say when you get to
> heaven you won't be be bothered about your loved ones suffering in hell.

Who might say that?

> You will see things differently then. That's the best argument given so you
> might feel good.

Oh right. I wont say that then. Thanks for the tip.

> But actually we don't need that argument because the
> doctrine of mainstream Christianity about hell is wrong.

Phew that was a close one then. Thankfully you are here to enlighten us
:-)

> It's the best that
> man can come up with to sooth you given the little that is said about our
> afterlife in the Bible.

Ok so they thought up an eternal suffering in hell to soothe me? Gosh
Im glad they werent trying to scare me because imagine what they would
have come up with then!

> Hell is a terrible place, it's a spiritual death.

How do you know that? Have you been? Has it got a gift shop?

> Mental and emotional
> anguish will be so bad that it's likened to suffering the pains of fire and
> brimstone

Gee that sounds bad doesnt it?

> And many shall taste of that torment.

Crikey that isnt good is it?

> But for the overwhelmingly
> vast majority of people who fail to receive Jesus in this life, they will
> not spend an eternity in hell, but shall be released after they have paid
> the penalty for their own sins.

So they wont be forgiven they will have to be punished for all their
sins? What kind of punishment will it be? How long will it take? Can
people watch?

> After they have paid the penalty for their
> own sins, they shall inherit a reward.

What is the reward for? Is it like points make prizes but with sins?

> They shall live forever in peace and
> joy and be servants of the most high God.

Thats handy :-)

> They will not have the same glory
> or rewards as the faithful, but they will be heirs of salvation
> never-the-less.

So they only get second rate eternal joy and peace? Bummer!

> What is meant is that they, unlike Satan and his angels,
> shall not be consigned to an eternity in hell. They shall come out of hell,
> just like king David.

David came out of Hell? Did you see it? Was there a photographer
present?

> So, if it's ever bothered you about your loved ones facing an endless
> eternity suffering the pains of hell, know and rejoice that this is not so.

Im rejoicing already :-)

> There are many mansions in the kingdom of God and God has a place prepared
> for your unbelieving loved ones to live in joy and happiness. Put it this
> way, even the least glorious of the mansions in the Fathers kingdom is
> vastly superior to anything on this earth.

Cool

> This is not said just to make you feel good. It's true.

Lovely.

Thanks for that.

Of course it is utter bollocks but it was a pleasant enough read.

regards

Phil

John Blake

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 9:30:27 AM3/17/06
to
Richard wrote:

>
> So, if it's ever bothered you about your loved ones facing an endless
> eternity suffering the pains of hell, know and rejoice that this is not so.
> There are many mansions in the kingdom of God and God has a place prepared
> for your unbelieving loved ones to live in joy and happiness. Put it this
> way, even the least glorious of the mansions in the Fathers kingdom is
> vastly superior to anything on this earth.
>
> This is not said just to make you feel good. It's true.

How do you know this?

John

John Blake

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 9:36:42 AM3/17/06
to
blunthermit wrote:

>
> However, IMHO, the concept of hell shouldn't really be the focus of
> Christianity as some might use this [doctrine] as an instrument to
> frighten non-believers into believing Christianity. It's not wrong, but
> then again it is not encouraged.
>

Wasn't that the reason for it's invention? The old carrot and stick
routine.

John

marca...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 9:45:53 AM3/17/06
to

This is not Biblically sound.
Jesus made it clear in the parable of Lazarus that after death we
cannot change our status.

But I accept that the parable was given in symbolic language, and Jesus
was just making a point, to which I just refered.

We also need to take into account where the Bible says the wicked are
annihiliated, such as in Malachi 4 and Rev 20:9.
The wicked will suffer until annihililated.
For most an almost instant death.

We will not literally be able in heaven to hear and see the wicked
being tormented, that would not be heaven.

Jesus makes it clear that now is the time to be saved, when darkness
comes no man can work, strive to enter the narrow way, many will come
in that day saying Lord, Lord but will not be let in.
This earth is the time we make our choices, there is no second chance
which is why we need to do our best to teach the gospel.

If the wicked were given another 1000 years they would still not
repent. God will save all He can, sadly most will reject Jesus who died
for them and so will lose their life.

God Bless


Marc

Quintal

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 1:21:30 PM3/17/06
to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:36:00 -0000, "Richard"
<madeupy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>There you are the only Christian in your family. You are saved to live in
>endless joy and happiness, and your father, mother, brother, sister, or your
>spouse are all bound for an endless eternity suffering the pains of hell,
>which are likened to the torment of fire and brimstone.

seems like the phrase "scare tactic" was coined just for this kind of
talk;-)

Richard

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 5:45:03 AM3/18/06
to
"John Blake" <john...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1142605827....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Pretty much how I know Jesus is the Son of God.

There are hints in the Bible, not just in the word of Godin these
latter-days.

1 Cor 15:
35: But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do
they come?

(In other words, when we are resurrected what bodies shall we have).

36: Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

(Okay, before are resurrected we must die, and that is like us sowing a
seed).

37: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but
bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

(The body that comes forth will not be the body that was sown, but some
other body).

38: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his
own body.

(The body given to each individual is not necessarily the same. That body
that shall be is contingent on each individual's work).

39: All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40: There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory
of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

(Clear statement that in the resurrection people inherit different kinds of
bodies. This is what the author is trying to tell us all the way through).

41: There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and
another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in
glory.
42: So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is
raised in incorruption:

(In the resurrection, people will be raised to either one of three glories).

Unbelieving loved ones shall inherit glory, but not the glory as typified by
the sun. Hell is not a kingdom of Glory.

Revd. Eric Potts

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 9:01:18 AM3/18/06
to
"Are your loved ones going to suffer and endless torment in hell?"


No.


Next question?

Michael J Davis

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 9:27:24 AM3/18/06
to
In message <4826l9F...@individual.net>, Richard
<madeupy...@ntlworld.com> writes

>"John Blake" <john...@f2s.com> wrote in message
>news:1142605827....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So, if it's ever bothered you about your loved ones facing an endless
>>> eternity suffering the pains of hell, know and rejoice that this is not
>>> so.
>>> There are many mansions in the kingdom of God and God has a place
>>> prepared
>>> for your unbelieving loved ones to live in joy and happiness. Put it this
>>> way, even the least glorious of the mansions in the Fathers kingdom is
>>> vastly superior to anything on this earth.
>>>
>>> This is not said just to make you feel good. It's true.
>>
>> How do you know this?
>
>Pretty much how I know Jesus is the Son of God.
>
>There are hints in the Bible, not just in the word of Godin these
>latter-days.

You never answered my question about 'on what authority do you accept
the Bible to be God's Word?"

Fancy telling us *before* you use the Bible to justify your deductions?

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

Chris H

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 9:54:00 PM3/18/06
to
Revd. Eric Potts wrote:
> "Are your loved ones going to suffer and endless torment in hell?"
>
>
> No.

I'm confused, do I get a free pass to heaven because I have a loved one
that believes?

> Next question?

I've got loads of questions, but lets see you answer the one above first.

--
C.

Chris H

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 9:25:09 PM3/18/06
to

I don't think you have answered (or thought about) the OP's original
question, how can you be happy in Heaven if you know your loved ones are
suffering an eternal torment? Surely this is like seeing huge natural
disasters on the news then refusing to give to the Red Cross because the
victims should have known better than live in an earthquake zone.

--
C.

Richard

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 5:12:42 AM3/19/06
to
"John Blake" <john...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1142605827....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Also:

1 Peter 4:

6: For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,
that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according
to God in the spirit

Why would the gospel be preached to the dead if they, not having received
the gospel in this life, go to an endless hell?

Revd. Eric Potts

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 5:36:43 AM3/19/06
to
Chris H wrote:
> Revd. Eric Potts wrote:
> > "Are your loved ones going to suffer and endless torment in hell?"
> >
> >
> > No.
>
> I'm confused, do I get a free pass to heaven because I have a loved one
> that believes?

No. No one is going to suffer an endless torment in Hell!


> > Next question?
>
> I've got loads of questions, but lets see you answer the one above first.
>

There you go then!

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 4:23:54 PM3/19/06
to
In message <1142764602.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

"Revd. Eric Potts" <loine...@aol.com> wrote:

> No. No one is going to suffer an endless torment in Hell!

Agreed. However I suspect that Eric thinks that is because there is no hell,
I and others think it is because hell is of finite duration.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 4:22:47 PM3/19/06
to
In message <441cc7c9$0$1169$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>
Chris H <N...@None.no> wrote:

> I'm confused, do I get a free pass to heaven because I have a loved one
> that believes?

No.

John Blake

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 4:43:22 AM3/20/06
to
Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message <1142764602.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> "Revd. Eric Potts" <loine...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > No. No one is going to suffer an endless torment in Hell!
>
> Agreed. However I suspect that Eric thinks that is because there is no hell,
> I and others think it is because hell is of finite duration.
>

So, neither of you really know anything about hell. After almost 2000
years of Christianity, with many Christians claiming to have a
relationship with God and some saying they actually converse with him
and a user manual that is supposed to have been dictated or, at least,
overseen by him, there is still no consensus on one of the most serious
aspects of the religion.

Do Christians actually agree completely on any part of their religion?

John Blake

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 4:47:22 AM3/20/06
to
Richard wrote:
> "John Blake" <john...@f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:1142605827....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Richard wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So, if it's ever bothered you about your loved ones facing an endless
> >> eternity suffering the pains of hell, know and rejoice that this is not
> >> so.
> >> There are many mansions in the kingdom of God and God has a place
> >> prepared
> >> for your unbelieving loved ones to live in joy and happiness. Put it this
> >> way, even the least glorious of the mansions in the Fathers kingdom is
> >> vastly superior to anything on this earth.
> >>
> >> This is not said just to make you feel good. It's true.
> >
> > How do you know this?
>
> Pretty much how I know Jesus is the Son of God.
>
> There are hints in the Bible, not just in the word of Godin these
> latter-days.
>

So, you don't actually know this, you just read it in a book.

John

Nick Milton

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 6:15:02 AM3/20/06
to
On 20 Mar 2006 01:43:22 -0800, "John Blake" <john...@f2s.com> wrote:


>and a user manual that is supposed to have been dictated or, at least,
>overseen by him

User manual?

Paul Dean

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 6:37:45 AM3/20/06
to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:12:22 +0200, Richard <madeupy...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> But here we go:
>
> All persons who are born on earth, kept their first estate. What that
> means is, that we lived in heaven before being born here on earth,

There you go.

--
Paul
http://www.orphancare.org.za/

John Blake

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 6:27:58 AM3/20/06
to

Er, isn't that what the Bible is then?

Andrew McMullon

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 7:45:47 AM3/20/06
to
In article <1142847802....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"John Blake" <john...@f2s.com> wrote:


> Do Christians actually agree completely on any part of their religion?

There is lots of agreement - but like any subject you'll always get
the dissenting voice.

I imagine the same is true for atheism.

--
and...@mcmullon.plus.com

Nick Milton

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 8:01:02 AM3/20/06
to

No!

John Blake

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 8:41:23 AM3/20/06
to
Andrew McMullon wrote:

Atheists, by definition, agree that there is no evidence to support the
existence of any god. If they didn't agree with this, they wouldn't be
atheists. I'm sure that they disagree on many other topics though.

John

Richard

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 12:40:01 PM3/20/06
to
"Paul Dean" <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote in message
news:op.s6pmjcmvwpdz4z@paul...

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:12:22 +0200, Richard <madeupy...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But here we go:
>>
>> All persons who are born on earth, kept their first estate. What that
>> means is, that we lived in heaven before being born here on earth,
>
> There you go.


What would be better as a reply, would be why you think this is incorrect.

Mark Goodge

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 1:49:29 PM3/20/06
to
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:40:01 -0000, Richard put finger to keyboard and
typed:

I think it's incorrect because there is nothing in the Bible which
would support such an assertion. On the contrary, there are passages
which suggest that our existence begins here on earth (eg, Psalm
139:13, Isaiah 44:2).

Mark
--
Visit: http://names.orangehedgehog.com - British surname distribution profiles
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!

Andrew McMullon

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 1:52:55 PM3/20/06
to
In article <1142862083....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
"John Blake" <john...@f2s.com> wrote:

> Andrew McMullon wrote:
>
>> In article <1142847802....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>> "John Blake" <john...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Do Christians actually agree completely on any part of their religion?
>>
>> There is lots of agreement - but like any subject you'll always get
>> the dissenting voice.
>>
>> I imagine the same is true for atheism.
>>
>
> Atheists, by definition, agree that there is no evidence to support the
> existence of any god. If they didn't agree with this, they wouldn't be
> atheists.

Well Christians, by definition, agree that there is evidence to
support the existence of Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God and
gave some pretty nifty teaching about loving and serving the God who
loves us.

They do disagree on lots of detail.

> I'm sure that they disagree on many other topics though.

As I said, just like Christians then.


--
and...@mcmullon.plus.com

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 21, 2006, 2:07:21 PM3/21/06
to
"Debbie" wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:36:00 -0000, "Richard"
> <madeupy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> There you are the only Christian in your family.

> <snip>


>> So, if it's ever bothered you about your loved ones facing an endless
>> eternity suffering the pains of hell, know and rejoice that this is not so.
>> There are many mansions in the kingdom of God and God has a place prepared
>> for your unbelieving loved ones to live in joy and happiness. Put it this
>> way, even the least glorious of the mansions in the Fathers kingdom is
>> vastly superior to anything on this earth.
>

> Or, as one of my students once wrote in an essay (one of my favourite
> typos ever): "Jesus brings salvation in some manor".

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 21, 2006, 2:10:28 PM3/21/06
to
John Blake wrote:

> Atheists, by definition, agree that there is no evidence to support the
> existence of any god. If they didn't agree with this, they wouldn't be
> atheists.

I don't believe you.

There can be evidence for something and evidence against it,
and one set of evidence can outweigh the other. I'm sure there
are lots of atheists who think that there is some evidence to
support the existence of a god or gods, but not enough to
make up for the evidence against.

John Blake

unread,
Mar 21, 2006, 2:33:43 PM3/21/06
to
On 21 Mar 2006 19:10:28 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:

Well, if there are, I would be interested to hear what they consider
to be evidence to support the existence of any god. Any atheists
lurking, please speak up.

John

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 5:45:49 AM3/22/06
to
John Blake wrote:

This may not be the absolute best place to find atheists. :-)

At http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-352590.html there's
some discussion of the matter. The first page there has,
I think, three atheists saying that they think there is
evidence for the existence of God but not enough evidence.
(The original poster "JohnPowell", and two others using
the names "rock" and "Raijo".) There are also a bunch of
people disagreeing vigorously, but I never claimed that
all, or even most, atheists, think there's evidence for
the existence of God. Only that thinking so is consistent
with atheism.

John Blake

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 7:54:35 AM3/22/06
to
On 22 Mar 2006 10:45:49 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:

>John Blake wrote:
>
>> On 21 Mar 2006 19:10:28 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
>> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Blake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheists, by definition, agree that there is no evidence to support the
>>>> existence of any god. If they didn't agree with this, they wouldn't be
>>>> atheists.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you.
>>>
>>> There can be evidence for something and evidence against it,
>>> and one set of evidence can outweigh the other. I'm sure there
>>> are lots of atheists who think that there is some evidence to
>>> support the existence of a god or gods, but not enough to
>>> make up for the evidence against.
>>
>> Well, if there are, I would be interested to hear what they consider
>> to be evidence to support the existence of any god. Any atheists
>> lurking, please speak up.
>
>This may not be the absolute best place to find atheists. :-)

Agreed :-)

>
>At http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-352590.html there's
>some discussion of the matter. The first page there has,
>I think, three atheists saying that they think there is
>evidence for the existence of God but not enough evidence.
>(The original poster "JohnPowell", and two others using
>the names "rock" and "Raijo".) There are also a bunch of
>people disagreeing vigorously, but I never claimed that
>all, or even most, atheists, think there's evidence for
>the existence of God. Only that thinking so is consistent
>with atheism.

This from John Powell seems to sum up his argument for evidence:

"To me, evidence consists of things like claims, arguments, and
experiences that help a rational person come to a conclusion."

That allows for just about anything, so is a silly argument IMO.

If an atheist had an experience that he had reason to suspect was
caused by or concerned a god, he would no longer be an atheist but a
sceptic or agnostic.

John

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 12:46:09 PM3/22/06
to
John Blake wrote:

[me, about whether one can be an atheist despite believing
that there's *some* evidence for the existence of God:]


>> At http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-352590.html there's
>> some discussion of the matter. The first page there has,
>> I think, three atheists saying that they think there is
>> evidence for the existence of God but not enough evidence.
>> (The original poster "JohnPowell", and two others using
>> the names "rock" and "Raijo".) There are also a bunch of
>> people disagreeing vigorously, but I never claimed that
>> all, or even most, atheists, think there's evidence for
>> the existence of God. Only that thinking so is consistent
>> with atheism.
>
> This from John Powell seems to sum up his argument for evidence:
>
> "To me, evidence consists of things like claims, arguments, and
> experiences that help a rational person come to a conclusion."
>
> That allows for just about anything, so is a silly argument IMO.

Perhaps it is. That doesn't change the fact that he's an
atheist and he believes there to be evidence for the existence
of God.

> If an atheist had an experience that he had reason to suspect was


> caused by or concerned a god, he would no longer be an atheist but a
> sceptic or agnostic.

Why? I admit the existence of evidence for all sorts of
things I confidently disbelieve in. I see no reason to
think I'm unique in this.

Paul Wright

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 9:33:09 AM3/22/06
to

You rang? (Well, actually, Gareth pointed me at this thread. Hello to
anyone who remembers me. Things have changed somewhat...)

Firstly, I think that there's the unremarkable stuff or the subjective
experiences which Christians would point to as evidence. But this
evidence begs the question, in that it is only evidence to people who
already believe God lies behind certain events and so interpret things
in a particular way (feelings that God wants them to do a particular
thing or has answered prayer, for example). The old sermon
illustration about the man stranded on his roof during a flood[1] is
the sort of thing I mean: we're asked to believe that God sent the
rowing boat and the helicopter, but it's sufficient to believe they
happened to be passing.

Secondly, I think there's stuff which is so extraordinary that it
would be good evidence, but it's not well attested. There are reports
of healings and other miracles today, for example, or there's the
record of the Bible. Those things are certainly some kind of evidence,
but they're not good enough: it's not clear that they've happened at
all, or that they only happen within Christianity, say.

A belief that there's no evidence for the existence of God isn't what
defines atheism, which I'd say was either a lack of belief in God
(weak atheism) or a belief that there is no God (strong atheism). Weak
atheism is everyone's default position, if you like, and so doesn't
require you to make statements about evidence, although a
consideration of the evidence might lead to the conscious adoption of
weak atheism.

[1] http://www.coolfunnyjokes.com/Funny-Jokes/Religious-Jokes/The-Big-Flood.html

--
Paul Wright | http://pobox.com/~pw201 | http://blog.noctua.org.uk/
Reply address is valid but discards anything which isn't plain text

John Blake

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 3:00:40 PM3/22/06
to
On 22 Mar 2006 17:46:09 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:


>> This from John Powell seems to sum up his argument for evidence:
>>
>> "To me, evidence consists of things like claims, arguments, and
>> experiences that help a rational person come to a conclusion."
>>
>> That allows for just about anything, so is a silly argument IMO.
>
>Perhaps it is. That doesn't change the fact that he's an
>atheist and he believes there to be evidence for the existence
>of God.

I'm not so sure about that. If you read the other posts in that
thread, you will see that John Powell is considered to be pretty much
anything but an atheist.

>
>> If an atheist had an experience that he had reason to suspect was
>> caused by or concerned a god, he would no longer be an atheist but a
>> sceptic or agnostic.
>
>Why? I admit the existence of evidence for all sorts of
>things I confidently disbelieve in. I see no reason to
>think I'm unique in this.

Maybe, but I haven't seen anything that I would consider as evidence
for a god and, in my experience, that's true of all atheists.

John

John Blake

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 3:19:10 PM3/22/06
to

ISTM that you are saying that theists believe they have evidence and I
wouldn't argue with that. But I can't see anywhere that you are saying
that you believe there is actual evidence. Do you consider yourself to
be an atheist, and do you think there is evidence for the Christian
god (or any other god)?

>
>A belief that there's no evidence for the existence of God isn't what
>defines atheism, which I'd say was either a lack of belief in God
>(weak atheism) or a belief that there is no God (strong atheism). Weak
>atheism is everyone's default position, if you like, and so doesn't
>require you to make statements about evidence, although a
>consideration of the evidence might lead to the conscious adoption of
>weak atheism.
>

I wasn't trying to define atheism, just pointing out that a belief
that there was evidence for the existence of a god would automatically
disqualify anyone from being an atheist. Certainly, if I thought there
was any evidence I would no longer consider myself an atheist.


John

Andrew McMullon

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 3:48:46 PM3/22/06
to
In article <c0a322tc1tpcmpmf1...@4ax.com>
John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:


> Maybe, but I haven't seen anything that I would consider as evidence
> for a god and, in my experience, that's true of all atheists.

Surely the existence or non-existence of God is an interpretation of
evidence which points some people one way and others the other.

Richard Dawkins finds the natural world powerful evidence for the
non-existence. I can't deny that to him it is evidence for his
interpretation even though to me it furnishes evidence to the contrary
position.

--
and...@mcmullon.plus.com

John Blake

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 5:03:12 PM3/22/06
to
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:48:46 GMT, Andrew McMullon
<and...@mcmullon.plus.com> wrote:

>In article <c0a322tc1tpcmpmf1...@4ax.com>
> John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe, but I haven't seen anything that I would consider as evidence
>> for a god and, in my experience, that's true of all atheists.
>
>Surely the existence or non-existence of God is an interpretation of
>evidence which points some people one way and others the other.

Not as I see it. Evidence for the non-existence of a god would be an
impossibility IMO as it's not possible to prove a negative. What
evidence could there be?

>
>Richard Dawkins finds the natural world powerful evidence for the
>non-existence.

Has he actually said that?

> I can't deny that to him it is evidence for his
>interpretation even though to me it furnishes evidence to the contrary
>position.

ISTM he is just disagreeing with those who assert that there is
evidence. Perhaps, like me, he simply hasn't seen any.

John

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 6:04:14 PM3/22/06
to
John Blake wrote:

> Not as I see it. Evidence for the non-existence of a god would be an
> impossibility IMO as it's not possible to prove a negative. What
> evidence could there be?

Against the proposition "there exists some being that, if we
knew all about it, we would mostly be willing to call a god"?
None, because the proposition is vague and only very weakly
(if at all) tied to possible human experiences.

Against the proposition "the universe was created, and is
still ruled, by an omnipotent and perfectly good being"?
The existence of evil and suffering, and the amount of
evil and suffering in the world, are commonly reckoned
evidence against that proposition. So is the very shortage
of evidence of which you complain: one might reasonably
expect that such a being would want everyone to know
about him and make his presence more clearly known.

Against the proposition "there exists such a being, who
is on the whole very accurately described by Christian
doctrine"? Anything that's evidence against Christianity
would be evidence against that proposition. So there's
certainly *some* such evidence (e.g., any errors or
discrepancies or immoral-seeming material in the
Christian scriptures, or the fact that Christians
aren't spectacularly better (morally) than others.
And there *could be* plenty more: suppose archaeologists
found caches of letters between early Christian leaders
admitting that they just made up large parts of what's
now believed by Christians, for some nefarious ends of
their own.

>> Richard Dawkins finds the natural world powerful evidence for the
>> non-existence.
>
> Has he actually said that?

He's certainly said similar things. Whether Andy had
something specific in mind I don't know, of course.
(I thought I remembered something of the kind in
"River out of Eden", but a quick look didn't find it.)

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 22, 2006, 6:10:51 PM3/22/06
to
John Blake wrote:

> I wasn't trying to define atheism, just pointing out that a belief
> that there was evidence for the existence of a god would automatically
> disqualify anyone from being an atheist. Certainly, if I thought there
> was any evidence I would no longer consider myself an atheist.

What do you mean by "evidence"?

(I would say that A is evidence for B if A makes B appreciably
more likely than it otherwise would be. If you toss a coin three
times and get heads each time, that's evidence in favour of the
coin's being two-headed; it makes that about 8 times more likely[1].
But of course it isn't good enough evidence to make a sensible
person consider that possibility seriously, unless there's some
other reason for thinking the coin might be bogus.)

[1] Assuming that you start out thinking the coin very unlikely
to be two-headed. If you start out thinking it as likely
to be as not, then the factor is of course much less: about
1.8. (It couldn't possibly be more than 2, however good the
evidence.)

Andrew McMullon

unread,
Mar 23, 2006, 5:10:37 AM3/23/06
to
In article <gvh3229mart0d78rm...@4ax.com>
John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:48:46 GMT, Andrew McMullon
> <and...@mcmullon.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <c0a322tc1tpcmpmf1...@4ax.com>
>> John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe, but I haven't seen anything that I would consider as evidence
>>> for a god and, in my experience, that's true of all atheists.
>>
>>Surely the existence or non-existence of God is an interpretation of
>>evidence which points some people one way and others the other.
>
> Not as I see it. Evidence for the non-existence of a god would be an
> impossibility IMO as it's not possible to prove a negative. What
> evidence could there be?

We are both oversimplifying. The theist sees evidence for the
existence of (a) god in the natural world. The atheist doesn't have
to, nor indeed does he try, to prove the non-existence of such a
being. He does have to refute the theist's evidence though, and this
is often done by trying to show the contrary position. So against the
theist's position that the universe furnishes evidence for the
existence of a loving omnipotent creator the atheist uses the universe
to suggest that couldn't exist.

>>Richard Dawkins finds the natural world powerful evidence for the
>>non-existence.
>
> Has he actually said that?

I'm summarizing his position but ISTR that he has said similar things.

>> I can't deny that to him it is evidence for his
>>interpretation even though to me it furnishes evidence to the contrary
>>position.
>
> ISTM he is just disagreeing with those who assert that there is
> evidence. Perhaps, like me, he simply hasn't seen any.


--
and...@mcmullon.plus.com

philip....@ntlworld.com

unread,
Mar 23, 2006, 7:22:04 AM3/23/06
to
John Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:48:46 GMT, Andrew McMullon
> <and...@mcmullon.plus.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <c0a322tc1tpcmpmf1...@4ax.com>
> > John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Maybe, but I haven't seen anything that I would consider as evidence
> >> for a god and, in my experience, that's true of all atheists.
> >
> >Surely the existence or non-existence of God is an interpretation of
> >evidence which points some people one way and others the other.
>
> Not as I see it. Evidence for the non-existence of a god would be an
> impossibility IMO as it's not possible to prove a negative. What
> evidence could there be?

Well that depends on what "god" and with which attributes is being
supposed.

I can think of much evidence against an omipotent and universally
visible bull God who breathes flame on and kills all who eat meat.

I would say that his lack of visibility and a lack of widespread flame
deaths would be very good evidence against such a God.

So it is possible to have evidence to show that a posited god is not
real.

Now I would agree that there isnt any evidence that my God doesnt exist
but we probably wouldnt agree as to why that is :-)

regards

Phil

Paul Wright

unread,
Mar 23, 2006, 8:50:17 PM3/23/06
to
In article <dlb322d1qpejs3lbl...@4ax.com>, John Blake wrote:
> ISTM that you are saying that theists believe they have evidence and I
> wouldn't argue with that. But I can't see anywhere that you are saying
> that you believe there is actual evidence. Do you consider yourself to
> be an atheist, and do you think there is evidence for the Christian
> god (or any other god)?

I consider myself to be a weak atheist with respect to most gods and a
strong atheist with respect to the God of evangelical Christianity, that
being the one I formerly believed in :-)

It's more than that I think theists believe they have evidence: I think
some of their evidence does weigh in favour of God existing, but I don't
find it convincing enough to back up the large claims made by
Christianity. I suppose that whether evidence which is not good enough
should be called "actual evidence" depends on what you mean by that phrase.



> I wasn't trying to define atheism, just pointing out that a belief
> that there was evidence for the existence of a god would automatically
> disqualify anyone from being an atheist. Certainly, if I thought there
> was any evidence I would no longer consider myself an atheist.

Most of the beliefs held by people who aren't actually crazy have some
internal consistency and some agreement with observed facts. I'm happy
to admit that Christianity has those things to some degree. What makes
me an atheist is that I don't think the any theist explanation is the
best one.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Mar 23, 2006, 1:56:05 AM3/23/06
to
In message <slrne22o0t.5lh.-$P-W$-@pome.noctua.org.uk>
Paul Wright <-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk> wrote:

> Those things are certainly some kind of evidence,
> but they're not good enough: it's not clear that they've happened at
> all, or that they only happen within Christianity, say.

Miracles which happen outside Christianity are just as much evidence for the
existence of (a) God as miracles within Christianity. They may be evidence
for multiple gods or evidence that God is a good deal more broadminded than
some would wish to believe.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Mar 23, 2006, 1:59:02 AM3/23/06
to
In message <dlb322d1qpejs3lbl...@4ax.com>
John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:

> I wasn't trying to define atheism, just pointing out that a belief
> that there was evidence for the existence of a god would automatically
> disqualify anyone from being an atheist. Certainly, if I thought there
> was any evidence I would no longer consider myself an atheist.

I don't think your argument is tenable. There is evidence for flying saucers
and Loch Ness monsters, but that does not mean that I believe in those
things. Having considered the evidence I do not find it convincing and so
remain an unbeliever.

In the same way, an atheist can weigh up the evidence for the existence of
God, find it unconvincing and remain an atheist.

John Blake

unread,
Mar 24, 2006, 6:52:48 AM3/24/06
to
On 22 Mar 2006 23:04:14 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:

But I'm not arguing about a specific god, just the claims that there
is evidence that any god exists. IMO, no such evidence exists.
Certainly there is evidence to refute some if not all of the claims
made by Christians regarding their god's specific attributes.

John

John Blake

unread,
Mar 24, 2006, 6:57:10 AM3/24/06
to
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:10:37 GMT, Andrew McMullon
<and...@mcmullon.plus.com> wrote:

>In article <gvh3229mart0d78rm...@4ax.com>
> John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:48:46 GMT, Andrew McMullon
>> <and...@mcmullon.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <c0a322tc1tpcmpmf1...@4ax.com>
>>> John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe, but I haven't seen anything that I would consider as evidence
>>>> for a god and, in my experience, that's true of all atheists.
>>>
>>>Surely the existence or non-existence of God is an interpretation of
>>>evidence which points some people one way and others the other.
>>
>> Not as I see it. Evidence for the non-existence of a god would be an
>> impossibility IMO as it's not possible to prove a negative. What
>> evidence could there be?
>
>We are both oversimplifying. The theist sees evidence for the
>existence of (a) god in the natural world. The atheist doesn't have
>to, nor indeed does he try, to prove the non-existence of such a
>being. He does have to refute the theist's evidence though, and this
>is often done by trying to show the contrary position.

Before that evidence needs to be refuted, it has to be presented.
Sorry to repeat myself, but I haven't seen any.

>So against the
>theist's position that the universe furnishes evidence for the
>existence of a loving omnipotent creator the atheist uses the universe
>to suggest that couldn't exist.

Please see my reply to Gareth on this point.


John

John Blake

unread,
Mar 24, 2006, 7:07:33 AM3/24/06
to
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:59:02 GMT, "Kendall K. Down"
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

>In message <dlb322d1qpejs3lbl...@4ax.com>
> John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> I wasn't trying to define atheism, just pointing out that a belief
>> that there was evidence for the existence of a god would automatically
>> disqualify anyone from being an atheist. Certainly, if I thought there
>> was any evidence I would no longer consider myself an atheist.
>
>I don't think your argument is tenable. There is evidence for flying saucers
>and Loch Ness monsters, but that does not mean that I believe in those
>things. Having considered the evidence I do not find it convincing and so
>remain an unbeliever.

IMO there is evidence for neither flying saucers nor the Loch Ness
monster. There is evidence that many people have seen things that they
couldn't explain, and popular current myths have led them to
conclusions that are not based on facts.

>
>In the same way, an atheist can weigh up the evidence for the existence of
>God, find it unconvincing and remain an atheist.

I don't think so.

John Blake

unread,
Mar 24, 2006, 7:01:51 AM3/24/06
to
On 23 Mar 2006 04:22:04 -0800, philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

>John Blake wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:48:46 GMT, Andrew McMullon
>> <and...@mcmullon.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <c0a322tc1tpcmpmf1...@4ax.com>
>> > John Blake <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Maybe, but I haven't seen anything that I would consider as evidence
>> >> for a god and, in my experience, that's true of all atheists.
>> >
>> >Surely the existence or non-existence of God is an interpretation of
>> >evidence which points some people one way and others the other.
>>
>> Not as I see it. Evidence for the non-existence of a god would be an
>> impossibility IMO as it's not possible to prove a negative. What
>> evidence could there be?
>
>Well that depends on what "god" and with which attributes is being
>supposed.
>
>I can think of much evidence against an omipotent and universally
>visible bull God who breathes flame on and kills all who eat meat.
>
>I would say that his lack of visibility and a lack of widespread flame
>deaths would be very good evidence against such a God.
>
>So it is possible to have evidence to show that a posited god is not
>real.

It certainly seems possible to show evidence that a god with such
attributes is not real, agreed. But that is a different argument.

>
>Now I would agree that there isnt any evidence that my God doesnt exist
>but we probably wouldnt agree as to why that is :-)

Well, I agree with that :-)

John

John Blake

unread,
Mar 24, 2006, 9:11:15 AM3/24/06
to
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:56:05 GMT, "Kendall K. Down"
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

>In message <slrne22o0t.5lh.-$P-W$-@pome.noctua.org.uk>
> Paul Wright <-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Those things are certainly some kind of evidence,
>> but they're not good enough: it's not clear that they've happened at
>> all, or that they only happen within Christianity, say.
>
>Miracles which happen outside Christianity are just as much evidence for the
>existence of (a) God as miracles within Christianity. They may be evidence
>for multiple gods or evidence that God is a good deal more broadminded than
>some would wish to believe.
>

Do you have any evidence for these miracles?

John

William

unread,
Mar 24, 2006, 5:11:52 PM3/24/06
to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:36:00 -0000, "Richard"
<madeupy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>There you are the only Christian in your family. You are saved to live in
>endless joy and happiness, and your father, mother, brother, sister, or your
>spouse are all bound for an endless eternity suffering the pains of hell,
>which are likened to the torment of fire and brimstone.

Many Christians do believe just that. Others sidestep it by talking
about the 'saved' and 'lost' but not spelling out what you are saved
from or what 'lost' means.

In a discussion here, some while ago, the answer I got was along the
lines that those who get to heaven will be so occupied with eternal
bliss and thanking God that they won't be bothered by feelings for
their children or loved-ones languishing in hell.

If they were allowed to have such feelings, presumably heaven would be
just another hell.

William

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 24, 2006, 6:44:49 PM3/24/06
to
John Blake wrote:

>>> Not as I see it. Evidence for the non-existence of a god would be an
>>> impossibility IMO as it's not possible to prove a negative. What
>>> evidence could there be?
>>
>> Against the proposition "there exists some being that, if we
>> knew all about it, we would mostly be willing to call a god"?

...


>> Against the proposition "the universe was created, and is
>> still ruled, by an omnipotent and perfectly good being"?

...


>> Against the proposition "there exists such a being, who
>> is on the whole very accurately described by Christian
>> doctrine"?

...


> But I'm not arguing about a specific god, just the claims that there
> is evidence that any god exists. IMO, no such evidence exists.
> Certainly there is evidence to refute some if not all of the claims
> made by Christians regarding their god's specific attributes.

I wasn't arguing about whether there *is* evidence, but
about whether (1) someone could think there is evidence
for the existence of a god and still be an atheist and
whether (2) there *could be* evidence against the existence
of a god.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 24, 2006, 7:05:47 PM3/24/06
to
John Blake wrote:

[Ken:]


>> I don't think your argument is tenable. There is evidence for flying saucers
>> and Loch Ness monsters, but that does not mean that I believe in those
>> things. Having considered the evidence I do not find it convincing and so
>> remain an unbeliever.

[John:]


> IMO there is evidence for neither flying saucers nor the Loch Ness
> monster. There is evidence that many people have seen things that they
> couldn't explain, and popular current myths have led them to
> conclusions that are not based on facts.

What is your definition of "evidence"?

John Blake

unread,
Mar 25, 2006, 3:53:59 AM3/25/06
to
On 22 Mar 2006 23:10:51 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:


>What do you mean by "evidence"?
>
>(I would say that A is evidence for B if A makes B appreciably
>more likely than it otherwise would be.

Then we simply do not agree on what constitutes evidence. Just because
something is statistically more likely than some other thing isn't
evidence IMO.

John

John Blake

unread,
Mar 25, 2006, 4:02:46 AM3/25/06
to
On 25 Mar 2006 00:05:47 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:

Much more than anecdotal submissions. In the case of the monster,
finding some bones that could be identified as being from a previously
unknown animal for instance. Flying saucers would be more difficult
but, as they would presumably be piloted by aliens, the discovery of
alien artefacts would be a start.

John

Alec Brady

unread,
Mar 25, 2006, 4:55:53 AM3/25/06
to

Then I would suggest that YO is very different from that of most
practising scientists.
--
Alec Brady
"You have to regard everything I say with suspicion - I may be trying to
bullshit you, or I may just be bullshitting you inadvertently."
- J. Wainwright Mathematics 140b

Alec Brady

unread,
Mar 25, 2006, 4:56:44 AM3/25/06
to

What is your definition of 'definition'? 'Cos that sounds like
'examples' to me

John Blake

unread,
Mar 25, 2006, 6:08:56 AM3/25/06
to
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:56:44 +0000, Alec Brady <alec....@virgin.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:02:46 +0000, John Blake
><johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Mar 2006 00:05:47 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
>><Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Blake wrote:
>>>
>>>[Ken:]
>>>>> I don't think your argument is tenable. There is evidence for flying saucers
>>>>> and Loch Ness monsters, but that does not mean that I believe in those
>>>>> things. Having considered the evidence I do not find it convincing and so
>>>>> remain an unbeliever.
>>>
>>>[John:]
>>>> IMO there is evidence for neither flying saucers nor the Loch Ness
>>>> monster. There is evidence that many people have seen things that they
>>>> couldn't explain, and popular current myths have led them to
>>>> conclusions that are not based on facts.
>>>
>>>What is your definition of "evidence"?
>>
>>Much more than anecdotal submissions. In the case of the monster,
>>finding some bones that could be identified as being from a previously
>>unknown animal for instance. Flying saucers would be more difficult
>>but, as they would presumably be piloted by aliens, the discovery of
>>alien artefacts would be a start.
>
>What is your definition of 'definition'? 'Cos that sounds like
>'examples' to me

My definition seemed best illustrated by examples. Sorry if that
doesn't suit.

John

John Blake

unread,
Mar 25, 2006, 6:10:32 AM3/25/06