XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: me@nothere.biz
On 07-November-2014 5:46 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Free Lunch provided clear evidence of his lies:
> ..
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:10 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:31:10 -0500, Free Lunch lied blatantly:
>>> .
>>>> 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.
> LOL. Why would I insult God if he has helped me, by telling someone who
I
> know in advance could not only never appreciate it but would be insulting of
the
> possibility?
I believe it's characterized as 'casting pearls before swine'.. :)
> The fact that nothing in your life has ever given you reason to
> consider the possibility that God exists is from my pov evidence that he
does,
> since there's plenty in some people's lives but none in people he would have
no
> reason to help, like you. I will say that what makes it seem most likely in
day
> to day life is not so much the things that happen, as the WAY they happen.
The
> timing of things is not the only thing, but the biggest thing.
>
>>>> 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.
> LOL!!! You just provided clear evidence that you DID lie, in response
to a
> challenge to provide evidence that you did not.
>
>>>> 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.
> Again in response to a challenge to provide evidence you didn't lie, you
> provided clear evidence that you DID lie. Why did you lie to begin with? What
> did you think you could possibly gain by lying about something you could
make no
> attempt at all to support, do you have any idea at all?
--
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)
|
