XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:23:23 -0500, Ralph wrote:
.
>On 11/11/2014 6:58 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:54:16 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>> .
>>> On 07-November-2014 5:46 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:58:21 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> ..
>>>>> On 04-November-2014 11:35 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:31:10 -0500, Free Lunch
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
>>>>>>> Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and
>>>>>>> "evidence".
>>>>>> There's plenty of evidence. Probably every person who believes
God exists
>>>>>> has experienced personal evidence in their own lives. 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.
>>>>> true. and the irony of the atheist position is that they ridicule those
>>>>> who do have a basis (evidence) for their beliefs, while having no
>>>>> evidence for theirs.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>> he pulled it out of his rear end..
>>>> Yes, his response showed that very clearly.
>>>>
>>>>>> since I'm not aware of any. Try backing
>>>>>> your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> indeed!
>>>> Now that he has lied, and then clearly shown that he lied by his
response to
>>>> a challenge to provide evidence he did not lie, do you think he'll lie
about all
>>>> of that even though HE has shown that it's clearly true?
>>> I don't bother with him at all as he never entertains any possibility.
>> He couldn't even attempt to back up his own horribly dishonest seeming
>> claim. Maybe he never tells the truth about anything at all.
>>
>>> all you'll ever get out of him is a denial that there is any evidence
>>> for God
>
>> He lies about more than just that. I don't recall him ever telling the
truth
>> about anything, but I'm aware of a few very stupidly blatant lies he's told
>> recently. What could he think he can gain from telling blatant lies like
that?
>> How could he think it makes him somehow superior???
>
>Do you drink 'adult beverages', Mur?
Answer my challenges first since I presented mine first. What could he
think
he can gain from telling blatant lies like that? How could he think it makes
him
somehow superior???
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
