On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:50:31 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >Hi. you know what.. the more of see of atheists, the more I realize just   
   >how clueless they really are about theistic matters. I have been giving   
   >them way too much credit.   
      
       Well, yes, but on the plus side it means you deliberately tried to find   
   some   
   value to their stupidity and lies and ineptitude, and tried some more, and kept   
   trying. So it's not like you jumped to a conclusion without giving them PLENTY   
   of opportunity to show that they have something worthwhile and respectable to   
   offer. It's just that they don't, and you let THEM teach you that by their own   
   willful replies and behavior.   
      
   >the other thing I have come to realize (that   
   >you realized long ago) is just how dishonest they can be, some more so   
   >than others of course. they will twist things around, and as you have   
   >said before, it leaves one scratching ones head wondering to what extent   
   >that's a matter of stupidity, duplicity, or dishonesty.   
      
       Yes it seems the most common question that keeps coming up over and over is   
   whether they're more stupid than dishonest, or more dishonest than stupid.   
      
   >another thing   
   >about them is that they like (want!) to overly complicate things. I   
   >believe that's simply to try to give themselves, or atheism, more   
   >credibility. for example, with regard to UFO's.. no normal sensible   
   >person has any problem describing the reports, sightings, photos,   
   >testimony of encounters, etc., collectively as evidence for UFO's.   
   >so why do atheists?   
      
       You challenged them to try explaining what, if not evidence, was   
   investigated when people investigated the possibility and none of them could   
   provide a respectable alternative. That should have been enough to let even an   
   atheist know how stupid their position is.   
      
   >I believe it's all about denying the existence of any   
   >evidence for God. they are trying to establish as a fact that nothing is   
   >evidence unless it is proof. but as we know, evidence does not need to   
   >be.   
      
       One of the best examples that raises the  'more dishonest or more stupid'   
   question.   
      
   >the other thing about them, is that they think they are so clever,   
   >and that their position is a superior one (to the point of giving them   
   >justification to deride the beliefs of others) when in fact the opposite   
   >is true! how ironic! their well evidenced cluelessness clearly shows   
   >they are far from clever when it comes to these matters, and what can   
   >possibly be superior about the single idea that God does not exist!   
      
       LOL!!! Especially when dealing with people who do consider that possibility   
   too.   
      
   >anyone who can come up with more than that one idea, which is trivial to   
   >do, has clearly trumped it, lol!   
      
       You have provided an excellent example of when just describing the position   
   they're in is hilarious!   
      
   >well, that's just some thoughts I've   
   >been wanting to get out there. please comment if you wish.   
      
       You took your time, evaluated these morons very open mindedly giving them   
   every opportunity to encourage you to arrive at a different conclusion,   
   encouraged them to develop more respectable and open minded thinking, and they   
   STILL showed you what dishonest and inept idiots they are. You did well and   
   treated them better than any of them deserve, so you should feel very good   
   about   
   your own position.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)