XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:26:48 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
.
>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.
We know the things I pointed out are true and you can't even attempt to
pretend that they're not.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
