XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:50:44 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:26 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, Sylvia Else    
   >>wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On 1/11/2014 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,   
   >>>   
   >>>Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?   
   >>   
   >>    Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?   
   >   
   >I see that you have chosen, again, to engage in one of the favorite ways   
   >that lying theists duck responsibility for the lies they tell. You run   
   >away from the _fact_ that you have never offered any evidence that any   
   >gods exist and that no one else has, either.   
      
       In contrast to that most blatant lie I've presented Sylvia and I feel   
   certain you as well with a list of things that are evidence. In fact I believe   
   I   
   remember you specifically lying that they were not evidence, just as you now   
   are   
   lying that I never presented you with the things you lied about when I   
   presented   
   them to you.   
      
       I was challenging Sylvia to see if she/he/whatever is aware of the things I   
   presented, or is so clueless as to not be aware at all. You have shown yourself   
   to be either unaware or to be lying, without me having had to challenge you   
   directly. You just voluntarily jumped in and showed yourself to be one or the   
   other, and my guess is you are the latter.   
      
   >>I'd also invite you to let us know what evidence you think there should be if   
   >>God exists, but by now we've learned that you haven't got the slightest clue   
   >>about that. You seem to think some should exist for some reason you can't   
   >>explain, yet you have no clue what it should be, where it should be, or why   
   it   
   >>should be available to humans at all. Can you not appreciate how idiotic it   
   is   
   >>for anyone to be in the position you're in, when just describing it is   
   >>hilarious?   
   >   
   >You need to believe that even if a god exists that there never would be   
   >any evidence, because you know there is no evidence.   
      
       I know you're lying in part by the fact that you yourself are evidence.   
   However I'm also aware that there's no reason for God to provide everyone with   
   proof of his existence if he does exist, and there's no way humans could go and   
   get it if he didn't provided us with it deliberately. So I'm aware of the FACT   
   that there's no reason to think there "should be" proof of God's existence if   
   he   
   does exist. I'm aware of and can appreciate that fact. You in contrast aren't   
   even aware of it even after I've pointed it out for you. HILARIOUS!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)