XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:10 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:31:10 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>.
>>On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:11:56 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>>
>>>On 01-November-2014 7:05 AM, The.W@tcher wrote:
>>>
>>>> For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's
existence,
>>>> when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with
evidence
>>>> of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is
evidence,
>>>> enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant
dishonesty.
>>>> Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as
evidence
>>>> makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of
God's
>>>> existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.
>>>
>>>true!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have
experienced their
>>>> complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge
>>>> presented to them by mur@.not The challenge was a simple one that they
should be
>>>> able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could
>>>> address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them
so
>>>> entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence"
they
>>>> think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think
God
>>>> should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge
>>>> resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't
have the
>>>> slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less
where he
>>>> should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are
>>>> clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their
>>>> cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the
atheists
>>>> themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans.
That
>>>> failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years
for
>>>> demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for
them to
>>>> be presented with.
>>>
>>>yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof
>>
>>Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
>>"evidence".
>
> There's plenty of evidence.
None.
>Probably every person who believes God exists
>has experienced personal evidence in their own lives.
No.
>They don't mention it much
>to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the
most
>clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road
>NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which
>brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's
>existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.
Tell us about the alleged evidence you know you have.
>>Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach
>>about gods is supported by evidence.
>
> That's a blatant lie from my pov, since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
>your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
There is no evidence to support any gods. You've made it absolutely
clear that you realize that but are too dishonest to acknowledge it.
>>Why should anyone believe a
>>religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches
>>something that he has no evidence for?
>
> You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any
>religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something
that
>he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it
>from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied
>blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take
>THAT from there.
You preach a religion that you cannot defend.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
