XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:11:56 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 01-November-2014 7:05 AM, The.W@tcher wrote:   
   >   
   >> For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's   
   existence,   
   >> when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with   
   evidence   
   >> of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is evidence,   
   >> enjoying the luxury of indulging themselves in their own blatant dishonesty.   
   >> Their constant demand for proof which they dishonestly refer to as evidence   
   >> makes it clear that they believe there should be some sort of proof of God's   
   >> existence available to humans if he does indeed exist.   
   >   
   >true!   
   >   
   >>   
   >> In the not too distant past atheists in these news groups have experienced   
   their   
   >> complete and total ruination which they encountered due to the challenge   
   >> presented to them by mur@.not The challenge was a simple one that they   
   should be   
   >> able to address and overcome with ease, yet in reality none of them could   
   >> address it at all much less overcome it. The challenge that defeated them so   
   >> entirely was simply for them to try to explain what sort of "evidence" they   
   >> think there should be, where they think it should be, and why they think God   
   >> should make it available to humans if he does exist. That simple challenge   
   >> resulted in their total ruination by exposing the fact that they don't have   
   the   
   >> slightest idea what sort of proof God should provide us with, much less   
   where he   
   >> should make it available. In the related followup thread "Why atheists are   
   >> clueless about the evidence aspect." the resulting exposure of their   
   >> cluelessness is examined and it's made clear that no one including the   
   atheists   
   >> themselves can suggest why any such proof should be available to humans.   
   That   
   >> failure makes it clear that they have been extreme fools all these years for   
   >> demanding something we now see there's no reason should be available for   
   them to   
   >> be presented with.   
   >   
   >yes, they cannot explain why there should be any proof   
      
   Could you please make an effort not to carelessly conflate "proof" and   
   "evidence".   
      
   Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach   
   about gods is supported by evidence. Why should anyone believe a   
   religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches   
   something that he has no evidence for?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)