XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:09:43 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >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?   
      
       The things I pointed out are true which is why you can't even try to   
   pretend   
   that they're not. There is some question as to whether you're really stupid   
   enough to believe they're not true, but the fact that you can't make any   
   attempt   
   to pretend they aren't true strongly suggests you're not honestly stupid enough   
   to believe they aren't. If you were then you'd try to give examples as to what   
   makes them incorrect. Since you can't do that it pretty much reveals that   
   you're   
   not stupid enough to believe what you claim, but instead are dishonestly   
   pretending to be more stupid than you actually are. This is a very common   
   position for you people to be in, and one that you almost always wind up in at   
   some point along the way.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)