XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: me@nothere.biz
On 12-November-2014 10:58 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
> 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???
atheists do think they're superior. which is rather peculiar really,
since they only have one idea to cling to, and nothing else
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
“The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
