XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:35:42 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:44:14 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 09:16:47 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:27:00 -0600, Uergil  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>In article , mur@.not.   
   >>>>wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Most that I've encountered try to claim they have no belief. Not   
   believing   
   >>>>> any gods exist can mean having no belief, or it could mean believing no   
   gods   
   >>>>> exist. Even after making it clear they believe no gods exist many   
   atheists   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Most atheists only SUSPECT that no gods exist, but are not certain   
   >>>>because they cannot absolutely prove it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Those who claim otherwise have no idea what atheists are like!   
   >>>   
   >>>Atheists do not believe in any gods. Suspect is a meaningless word in   
   >>>this context. Theists know they cannot support their belief in their   
   >>>gods with evidence.   
   >>   
   >>    Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE   
   you   
   >>think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for   
   him   
   >>to provide us with it if he exists.   
   >   
   >Until you define your god, you cannot possibly determine what evidence   
   >you should be able to provide.   
      
       Since you feel there should be evidence for it you define it and then try   
   to   
   explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you   
   think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him   
   to provide us with it if he exists. Why are such basic things so impossible for   
   you people?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)