XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:56:30 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
.
>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.
There is no such fact to address. There's only your lie, which as I've
pointed out IS evidence of Satan't influence on you. There might be other
reasons why people would tell such an obvious lie, but so far no one has ever
presented a respectable one.
>>>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
I challenge ANY AND ALL OF YOU, and that challenge defeats every one of you
so entirely that you're afraid to attempt to address it.
>is to explain why you need to lie about your god's existence.
God might exist and that's a fact. Saying it's not a fact is a blatant lie.
There might be a God associated with Earth and that's a fact. Saying it's not a
fact is a blatant lie.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
