XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/19/2016 12:48 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
   > On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 12:31:11 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/18/2016 11:51 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>>  Christopher A. Lee  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:37:01 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's   
   >>>>> my contention that this is the better explanation,   
   >>>   
   >>> How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly   
   >>> there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?   
   >>> You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so   
   >>> we can establish their worth.   
   >>>   
   >> My conclusions are not based on my religious beliefs. If they were, I   
   >> would be quoting the Bible, Billy Graham, the Pope or some other   
   >> religious source.   
   >   
   > No. Because the only reason to propose a designer is one's   
   > pre-existing belief.   
   >   
   You don't allow for anyone to have a view that contradicts you pre   
   existing notion that religion is the basis for believing anything that's   
   different from your views. This is intolerance.   
      
   >>                          But I _NEVER_ do. I certainly do have actual   
   reasons   
   >> which I have presented numerous times.   
   >   
   > No. All you have offered are fallacies like non-sequiturs, argument   
   > from what you imagine authorities say but don't, and ad hominems whose   
   > premises are lies.   
    >   
   Not going over this again. You have a short memory.   
   >   
   >>                                                                   But in   
   each case you and Chris   
   >> have taken defensive positions,   
   >   
   > Liar.   
   >   
   > We have shown you (s) where you have gone wrong, and (b) why there   
   > cannot be any evidence for design.   
    >   
   That's just an unsupported claim that _you_ make! But I know   
   why you make that claim. You cannot see beyond the four walls   
   that you are in.   
      
   >   
   >>                                                  rather than really examine   
   my reasons   
   >> for my conclusions. I give references, your response, "Why should I go   
   >> to these references?"   
   >   
   > No, liar - you make things up that authors don't say, and you never   
   > address what people have taken  the time and trouble to explain, you   
   > just repeat the same old nonsense as if it had never been refuted or   
   > rebutted every time you crash the atheist group.   
    >   
   Nonsense! Since you refuse to go to my references, you have no idea what   
   they say. You just ad lib what you think they _must_ mean.   
   >   
   > You need to explain things in your own words, to make sure you know   
   > just how your "authorities" reach the conclusions you think they do.   
    >   
   I do not. I'm not a mind reader, so I just have to take them at their   
   word rather than try to spin what they say. That's what you do.   
   >   
   > And you also need to show us where our explanations go wrong.   
    >   
   I've tried. But what do I get? Liar, idiot moron etc.   
   >   
   >> I remember you. And being defensive is not examining my reasons in order   
   >> to establish their worth.   
   >   
   > Done over and over again, liar.   
   >   
   You have to go to the sites I reference. Which so often is refused.   
   By "why should I?"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)