XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:21:30 -0500, Ralph wrote:
>On 11/11/2014 6:58 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:45:48 -0600, Free Lunch lied blatantly:
>> .
>>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:46:32 -0500, 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? 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.
>>> So you know you are bullshitting
>> I know you're blatantly lying. What the FUCK do you think you can gain
by
>> telling blatant lies like that you stupid moron, do you have any idea at
all. By
>> telling such stupid blatant lies that there's no reason for anyone to ever
tell,
>> YOU are evidence of Satan influencing stupid human minds. Whether he exists
or
>> not YOU and your stupidly blatant lies are evidence that he does.
>>
>> As I pointed out I knew in advance that you would be too stupid to
>> appreciate any particular examples, but you can't appreciate a simple basic
>> concept which is even more stupid than I anticipated. I do tend to
overestimate
>> people though, even when I do expect nothing but remarkable stupidity out of
>> them.
>>
>>> and have decided to double down on your own dishonesty.
>> Do you have any idea at all what you think you're trying to talk about?
>>
>>> Clearly you have invented a very disgusting god to worship.
>> By your own behavior it appears that a far more disgusting beast is
having
>> influence on what you think, what you can't think, and what you do. The
Bible IS
>> EVIDENCE of that, as you are yourself. YOU are evidence that what is warned
of
>> in the Bible is correct. So as you try to persuade people that the Bible is
not
>> evidence of God's existence, you yourself are evidence that it is.
HILARIOUS!!!
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
