XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 04-November-2014 11:35 AM, 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. Probably every person who believes God   
   exists   
   > has experienced personal evidence in their own lives. 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.   
      
   true. and the irony of the atheist position is that they ridicule those   
   who do have a basis (evidence) for their beliefs, while having no   
   evidence for theirs.   
      
   >   
   >> 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,   
      
   he pulled it out of his rear end..   
      
   > since I'm not aware of any. Try backing   
   > your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   indeed!   
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
   Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com   
   http://pamelageller.com/   
   “The right to free speech includes the right to offend"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)