XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:54:16 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 07-November-2014 5:46 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:58:21 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On 04-November-2014 11:35 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:31:10 -0500, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>> ..   
   >>>>> 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. Probably every person who believes God   
   exists   
   >>>> has experienced personal evidence in their own lives. 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.   
   >>> true. and the irony of the atheist position is that they ridicule those   
   >>> who do have a basis (evidence) for their beliefs, while having no   
   >>> evidence for theirs.   
   >>>   
   >>>>> 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,   
   >>> he pulled it out of his rear end..   
   >>      Yes, his response showed that very clearly.   
   >>   
   >>>> since I'm not aware of any. Try backing   
   >>>> your claim up with evidence that you're not lying.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>> indeed!   
   >>      Now that he has lied, and then clearly shown that he lied by his   
   response to   
   >> a challenge to provide evidence he did not lie, do you think he'll lie   
   about all   
   >> of that even though HE has shown that it's clearly true?   
   >   
   >I don't bother with him at all as he never entertains any possibility.   
      
       He couldn't even attempt to back up his own horribly dishonest seeming   
   claim. Maybe he never tells the truth about anything at all.   
      
   >all you'll ever get out of him is a denial that there is any evidence   
   >for God   
      
       He lies about more than just that. I don't recall him ever telling the   
   truth   
   about anything, but I'm aware of a few very stupidly blatant lies he's told   
   recently. What could he think he can gain from telling blatant lies like that?   
   How could he think it makes him somehow superior???   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)