On Thu, 2 May 2024, Maximus 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.
>
>>>> 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
>
>> 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.

No, that is incorrect. Churches and churchgoers are evidence that churches
and organized religions exist. They are not evidence of everything that
religion proclaims to be true, is true.

>> 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
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
>