XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:57:07 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:54:14 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:47:16 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   ...   
   >>>    "The gods of the theists who bother us here don't exist, even in non-god   
   >>>form." - Free Lunch   
   >>   
   >>The fact that we don't bother trying to decide of the entire set of all   
   >>possible gods do or do not exist does not affect the fact that the gods   
   >>preached by the theist fools who waste our time in alt.atheism do not   
   >>exist.   
   >   
   >    Present your evidence, not just the possibility you've put your faith in.   
      
   Define your god for me so I can show you that your god does not exist.   
   Until you offer a well-defined god, there is nothing to discuss. Not   
   only is it too vague to be useful, but some theists will keep redefining   
   their god to make excuses for why their prior definition made it   
   impossible for that god to exist.   
      
   >>When you find some evidence to support a god, get back to us.   
   >   
   >    You lie about the evidence you are presented with, yet have no   
   >clue...LOL...what sort of evidence you think there should be. It's still   
   amusing   
   >just describing your position.   
      
   You have never offered any evidence. You know that. I have never lied   
   about any evidence that has been presented because we all know that   
   there has never been any evidence presented to show that any god exists.   
      
   I expect you to make more excuses and offer absolutely no evidence   
   because that has been your game plan up to this point.   
      
   ...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)