XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:47:11 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:52:07 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >.   
   >>On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:31 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:53:11 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>>.   
   >>>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else   
   >>>>:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>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?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of   
   >>>>religious texts, number of believers and arguments from   
   >>>>incredulity?   
   >>>   
   >>>    What do you think there should be? Why can't you people give respectable   
   >>>examples of what type(s) of evidence you think there should be in addition   
   to   
   >>>the evidence you deny? Why can't you say where it should be? Why can't you   
   >>>explain why it should be available to humans? Why can't you say why you   
   can't   
   >>>say, even after it has been explained for you? The answer is that you're   
   ashamed   
   >>>of your failings as you should be, and you're ashamed of your shame, as   
   again   
   >>>you should be. ALL OF YOU!   
   >>   
   >>You never offered any evidence at all.   
   >   
   >    That's a blatant lie. By telling such blatant lies YOU YOURSELF are more   
   >evidence, as I feel sure I've pointed out for you in the past.   
      
   Once again, you allege that you provided evidence but _never_ actually   
   address the fact that you never did.   
      
   >>Don't make excuses for your dishonesty.   
   >   
   >    I didn't make anything that even appears to be an excuse for anything, so   
   >again you're the one being dishonest. What I DID DO was to challenge you with   
   >things that defeated you and always do defeat ALL OF YOU so absolutely and   
   >entirely that you can't even attempt to meet the challenges, much less   
   overcome   
   >them. AGAIN you have shown me to be correct, and you have shown that you are   
   >ashamed of your failings as I correctly pointed out.   
   >   
   >                                                    BUT!!!!!!   
   >   
   >    Those challenges still remain. So you still have a chance to try providing   
   >evidence that something I pointed out might not be entirely correct, and that   
   >you might be able to address one or more of the challenges that so far have   
   >defeated you entirely. This goes for ALL OF YOU!!! The challenges still remain   
   >open for ANY OF YOU to try to address and overcome.   
      
   You challenge is to explain why you need to lie about your god's   
   existence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)