XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:55:10 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:46:46 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:43:50 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>>.
>>>On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:17 -0500, mur.@.not. 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
>>>>
>>>> Apparently they can't even make an attempt. They've certainly shown
that
>>>>they don't have any idea what they thought they were trying to talk about.
It
>>>>seems that they're now aware of their position since they don't try to
defend
>>>>themselves or their positon any more.
>>>
>>>Go preach your religious nonsense elsewhere. You both know that you have
>>>no evidence to support any claims about gods.
>>
>> You blatantly lie that there's no evidence even though we ONLY have
evidence
>>that God does exist, and there is NO evidence he does not.
>
>You _know_ that you have no evidence. You know it and lie about it.
In contrast to that blatant lie we ONLY have evidence that God DOES exist,
while there's no evidence at all that he does not. You lie that there is none
because you don't like what there is, but lying that it doesn't exist is just
repeating a contemptible lie when admitting it exists and being critical of its
value would be an entirely different thing. It would also be much less
contemptible since it would not be a blatant lie. Being in that position alone
is bad enough, but yours is even worse than just that. By lying that there's no
evidence you make it known that you think there should be some sort of proof of
God's existence if he does exist, yet as you ALL have proven not a single one
of
you has any idea what sort of evidencen you think should be where or why you
think it should be there if God does exist.
>You
>invent a god that you need to lie about. What a pitiable creature you
>are.
>
>>You make it clear you
>>will not refer to the evidence that exists as evidence.
>
>I will accept all evidence. I will not accept your intentional false
>claims
Like what?
>because we both know they are not evidence.
>
>>You make it clear that
>>you believe if God does exist, that YOU believe there should be stronger
>>evidence of his existence. YOU make it clear you believe that if God does
exist
>>there should be some sort of proof that he exists, yet you lie about that. So
>>you lie that there is no evidence, you lie that you think there should be
proof
>>of it if God does exist, but you don't have the slightest clue what sort of
>>proof you think there should be, or where you think it should be, or why you
>>think it should be available to humans. THAT is the amusing though pathetic
>>position you and your fellow atheists ARE IN. You are also in the position of
>>being ashamed of being in that position and wanting to deny it, though you
will
>>almost certainly never make any attempt to move out of that position you're
>>ashamed of being in. LOL!!! Again just describing the position you people
are in
>>is HILARIOUS!
>
>You worship the lies you tell, nothing else.
You put all your faith in a possibility you can't support, nothing else.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
