XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:22:45 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:10:35 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>.
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:57:10 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:55:17 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>.
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> People have provided you with evidence
>>
>>Show me. Direct me to any post that actually shows that evidence has
>>been provided. You cannot because you know that no such evidence was
>>provided.
>>
>>>and you lie about that because you don't happen to like it.
>>
>>We both know that no evidence has ever been offered that any gods exist.
>>I have no need to lie about that. You try to find excuses because you
>>know that you cannot provide any evidence or direct me to any evidence
>>that others have provided.
>>
>>>Then when challenged on what sort of evidence you think
>>>there should be you have no idea at all. LOL...as is often the case, you
>>>people's position is hilarious!
>>
>>You know what evidence is.
>
> When I first began challenging you people I thought some of you might
>actually have some clue what you thought you were trying to talk about, and
>would try to explain what you think it is. But by now we've seen that none of
>you have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about when you demand
>evidence. You don't have any idea WHAT sort of evidence you think there should
>be, WHERE you think it should be, or WHY you think it should be to God's
benefit
>to provide it if he exists. You also can't appreciate why God would not
provide
>proof of his existence. You're not capable of actually thinking about this
>topic.
You really have no idea what you are talking about and clearly don't
care how ignorant or deluded you are. You know that your silly god is a
worthless idea.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
