XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
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.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
