Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2024 22:42:31 +1000, Maximus
> <gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <l9k4dqF498qU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>
>> Attila wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 10:34:33 +1000, Maximus
>>> <gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <l9g5cuFglehU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Attila wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:01:01 +1000, Maximus
>>>>> <gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <l9cfdfFu7b8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Attila wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:53 +1000, Maximus
>>>>>>> <gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>> <l9c86kFt574U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Attila wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:43:47 +1000, Maximus
>>>>>>>>> <gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>> <l9c3rjFsglgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Attila wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:18:28 +1000, Maximus
>>>>>>>>>>> <gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>>>> <l9bnqmFqncgU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:59:25 +1000, Maximus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gladiator@colosseum.rome> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l9b1k0FniudU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:38:00 -0700, The Starmaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <662F2428.72E6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is a belief, it's not a science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religious beliefs and Atheism beliefs are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheist are confident that there is no God, as Religions are confident that there is a God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are are both on the same level of ...beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Theists postulate the existence of something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence for that existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree. billions of believers and personal testimony is evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal testimony is never evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> any court would disagree with you
>>>>>>>>>>> It is well known that personal testimony is the poorest kind
>>>>>>>>>>> of evidence.
>>>>>>>>>> maybe, but still evidence. and it's relative to numbers. if twenty pp
>>>>>>>>>> say they saw me run down a pedestrian in my car, that carries more
>>>>>>>>>> weight than if just one person says it.
>>>>>>>>> I agree - it is evidence. It just isn't very useful
>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The value of eyewitnesses:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to watch all those, sorry. (see comment below)
>>>>>>>>> Any one will do. They all show what you see may not be
>>>>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since there is no way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as the "belief of billions" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned there are hundreds of different beliefs in there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they can't all be correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was referring to Xtianity and Islam primarily
>>>>>>>>>>> How about Hindu?
>>>>>>>>>> about 1.2 billion. but Christians and Islamists make up over 50% of all
>>>>>>>>>> religious faiths.
>>>>>>>>> So what? That doesn't mean any of them are valid.
>>>>>>>> no, but your point is there's no evidence. I say it's evidence the
>>>>>>>> beliefs could be valid.
>>>>>>> Or not. There is no actual evidence that would convince
>>>>>>> someone either way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are hundreds of others. In fact
>>>>>>>>>>> there are many, many different Christian beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>> yes. I'm just saying it's not as you say that there's no evidence. for
>>>>>>>>>> example believers spend a lot of money in support of their faith. just
>>>>>>>>>> near where I am there's a 7th day Adventist complex worth many millions
>>>>>>>>>> of dollars. also many intelligent ppl have religious beliefs. in fact
>>>>>>>>>> theists vastly outnumber us. you can't just dismiss such things as being
>>>>>>>>>> no evidence that there may be some validity to their beliefs.
>>>>>>>>> Or not. There is exactly the same support either way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but at the
>>>>>>>>>> end of the day, I look at what the beliefs actually are. when one does
>>>>>>>>>> that, it's not so difficult to dismiss them as nonsense. eg. xtians
>>>>>>>>>> believe they will live in mansions, and walk on streets paved with gold
>>>>>>>>>> in some god adoring afterlife, and muslims believe they will get 70
>>>>>>>>>> virgins if they die as martyrs.
>>>>>>>>> Most religions have common factors - rewards for believers
>>>>>>>>> and painful punishment for non-believers.
>>>>>>>>> Basically there is no actual supporting evidence either way
>>>>>>>>> for anything involving religion. That is why faith was
>>>>>>>>> invented. Faith is belief without evidence - for those who
>>>>>>>>> believe in such.
>>>>>>>> no, faith is belief without proof
>>>>>>> Proof - evidence - either way it is the same thing. No
>>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>> no. evidence is not proof. evidence is just something that supports a
>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>> True, but usually evidence has some validity factor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just what is evidence is usually left to the judgment of the
>>>>> parties involved, which makes unsupported evidence useless.
>>>>> Meaningful evidence is unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable
>>>>> and credible.
>>>>>
>>>> unsupported evidence is not useless. all evidence is evaluated on it's
>>>> credibility. if there's a murder and I say I saw it happen, but no one
>>>> else did, that still needs to be investigated.
>>> True but without corroboration there would be little result.
>>>
>>>>>>> A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven
>>>>>>> to be true or false through objective evidence. No religion
>>>>>>> has this.
>>>>>> yes they do. Muhammad is an historical person, as is Jesus
>>>>> Absolutely correct but there is no unambiguous, unrelated,
>>>>> verifiable and credible evidence that they were any
>>>>> different from any John Doe off any street.
>>>> the impact they had on the world suggests otherwise
>>> Ra and Osiris had a similar impact on their world.
>>>
>>>>> Simply
>>>>> accepting (or proving) someone with that name existed at a
>>>>> certain time and place proves nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no independent and unrelated supporting evidence.
>>>>>>>> . the gospels for example are a basis
>>>>>>>> for Xtian faith
>>>>>>> Or for any other religion. None of them have anything
>>>>>>> beyond faith. Your gospels are accepted as being true
>>>>>>> without any supporting evidence.
>>>>>> the gospels are evidence for the events they contain
>>>>> Your acceptance of them as evidence does nothing to actually
>>>>> validate them
>>>> nevertheless they are still evidence for what they contain. your claim
>>>> is there's no evidence for religious belief, not that there's no proof.
>>>> just as sporting organizations, clubs, and participants are evidence for
>>>> their sport, ie. that the sport exists, Churches and Mosques and the
>>>> believers (billions of them) are evidence for their God. ie. that the
>>>> God exists, or there wouldn't be any Churches or Mosques. to me this
>>>> seem obvious.
>>> Nonsense. Evidence without factual support is about as
>>> useless as can be imagined.
>>>
>>> "Oh, look! A pile of poop! That proves there is a god!"
>>> "Oh, look! A rock! That proves there is a god!"
>>> "Oh, look! A bug! That proves there is a god!"
>>> "Oh, look! A ham sandwich! That proves there is a god!"
>>>
>>> Take your pick. For some that is all the evidence that is
>>> needed.
>>>
>>>>> Such validation requires unambiguous,
>>>>> unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence,
>>>>>
>>>>>> it's irrelevant
>>>>>> whether those events are true or not. they are still evidence. but some
>>>>>> things in the gospels are known to be factual. Bart Ehrman is a (very)
>>>>>> good authority on this.
>>>>> Nothing beyond some physical locations and independently
>>>>> verified historical figures. None of the mystical or
>>>>> supernatural claims are independently supported.
>>>> yes
>>> Therefore belief or non-belief can be as simple as flipping
>>> a coin.
>> of course ppl can believe or not, as with anything, like UFO's, or
>> Bigfoot, or whatever
>>
>>> Except belief under these conditions also requires
>>> belief in anything including vampires, elves, giants,
>>> dragons, werewolves, and shape shifters.
>>>
>> that's a stupid argument. belief in some thing doesn't create any
>> obligation to believe in some other thing.
>>
> True, but how can defend not believing in something when the
> evidence supporting something you do believe in is exactly
> the same in either case?
>
> Such a selection would be the definition of arbitrary.

everything is considered on it's merits. there seems to be credible
evidence for believing in UFO's, werewolves not so much.

>
> --
>
>

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"The problem with theism is that it never remains within
the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"