XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Free Lunch provided clear evidence of his lies:   
   .   
   >On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:10 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:31:10 -0500, Free Lunch lied blatantly:   
   >>.   
   >>>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".   
   >>   
   >>    There's plenty of evidence.   
   >   
   >None.   
   >   
   >>Probably every person who believes God exists   
   >>has experienced personal evidence in their own lives.   
   >   
   >No.   
   >   
   >>They don't mention it much   
   >>to atheists since atheists deny that anything is evidence. Atheists are the   
   most   
   >>clueless, and they take the easiest road possible even though that road   
   >>NECESSARILY involves being very comfortable with blatant dishonesty. Which   
   >>brings us back to the consistent FACT that atheists ARE EVIDENCE of God's   
   >>existence by being evidence that Satan is having influence on human minds.   
   >   
   >Tell us about the alleged evidence you know you have.   
      
       LOL. Why would I insult God if he has helped me, by telling someone who I   
   know in advance could not only never appreciate it but would be insulting of   
   the   
   possibility? The fact that nothing in your life has ever given you reason to   
   consider the possibility that God exists is from my pov evidence that he does,   
   since there's plenty in some people's lives but none in people he would have no   
   reason to help, like you. I will say that what makes it seem most likely in day   
   to day life is not so much the things that happen, as the WAY they happen. The   
   timing of things is not the only thing, but the biggest thing.   
      
   >>>Religions go out of their way to make excuses for why nothing they teach   
   >>>about gods is supported by evidence.   
   >>   
   >>    That's a blatant lie from my pov, since I'm not aware of any. Try backing   
   >>your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.   
   >   
   >There is no evidence to support any gods. You've made it absolutely   
   >clear that you realize that but are too dishonest to acknowledge it.   
      
       LOL!!! You just provided clear evidence that you DID lie, in response to a   
   challenge to provide evidence that you did not.   
      
   >>>Why should anyone believe a   
   >>>religious teacher who spends all his time justifying why he teaches   
   >>>something that he has no evidence for?   
   >>   
   >>    You're trying to "teach" people now. Provide your evidence that any   
   >>religious teacher "spends all his time justifying why he teaches something   
   that   
   >>he has no evidence for." If you can provide that evidence then we can take it   
   >>from there. If/WHEN you can't provide that evidence we'll know that you lied   
   >>blatantly about something else you have no evidence for, and then we can take   
   >>THAT from there.   
   >   
   >You preach a religion that you cannot defend.   
      
       Again in response to a challenge to provide evidence you didn't lie, you   
   provided clear evidence that you DID lie. Why did you lie to begin with? What   
   did you think you could possibly gain by lying about something you could make   
   no   
   attempt at all to support, do you have any idea at all?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)