XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:34:28 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   No, your claims are not true. How silly do you think we are?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)