XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:58:21 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >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..   
      
       Yes, his response showed that very clearly.   
      
   >> 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!   
      
       Now that he has lied, and then clearly shown that he lied by his response   
   to   
   a challenge to provide evidence he did not lie, do you think he'll lie about   
   all   
   of that even though HE has shown that it's clearly true?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)