XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:26 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, Sylvia Else    
   >wrote:   
   >.   
   >>On 1/11/2014 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,   
   >>   
   >>Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?   
   >   
   >    Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that much?   
      
   I see that you have chosen, again, to engage in one of the favorite ways   
   that lying theists duck responsibility for the lies they tell. You run   
   away from the _fact_ that you have never offered any evidence that any   
   gods exist and that no one else has, either.   
      
   >I'd also invite you to let us know what evidence you think there should be if   
   >God exists, but by now we've learned that you haven't got the slightest clue   
   >about that. You seem to think some should exist for some reason you can't   
   >explain, yet you have no clue what it should be, where it should be, or why it   
   >should be available to humans at all. Can you not appreciate how idiotic it is   
   >for anyone to be in the position you're in, when just describing it is   
   >hilarious?   
      
   You need to believe that even if a god exists that there never would be   
   any evidence, because you know there is no evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)