On Fri, 3 May 2024, Maximus 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 if you want to be consistent, it grants everyone the same right.
So I could argue I believe in !X if you believe in X and there would be no
way to tell who is right. Thus leading to a reductio ad absurdum and
violation of the law of identity.

>> --
>>
>>
>
>
>