XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:47:21 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>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?
I'm not the one who invented any gods. I don't have any responsibility
for the problems that theists have defending their religious dogma. When
you find some evidence to support a god, let us know.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
