XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:28:46 -0500, Ralph  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:00:52 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:56:30 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:47:11 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:52:07 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>.   
   >>>>>On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:31 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:53:11 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>>>>>.   
   >>>>>>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else   
   >>>>>>>:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>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?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of   
   >>>>>>>religious texts, number of believers and arguments from   
   >>>>>>>incredulity?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    What do you think there should be? Why can't you people give   
   respectable   
   >>>>>>examples of what type(s) of evidence you think there should be in   
   addition to   
   >>>>>>the evidence you deny? Why can't you say where it should be? Why can't   
   you   
   >>>>>>explain why it should be available to humans? Why can't you say why you   
   can't   
   >>>>>>say, even after it has been explained for you? The answer is that you're   
   ashamed   
   >>>>>>of your failings as you should be, and you're ashamed of your shame, as   
   again   
   >>>>>>you should be. ALL OF YOU!   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>You never offered any evidence at all.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    That's a blatant lie. By telling such blatant lies YOU YOURSELF are   
   more   
   >>>>evidence, as I feel sure I've pointed out for you in the past.   
   >>>   
   >>>Once again, you allege that you provided evidence but _never_ actually   
   >>>address the fact that you never did.   
   >>   
   >>    There is no such fact to address. There's only your lie, which as I've   
   >>pointed out IS evidence of Satan't influence on you. There might be other   
   >>reasons why people would tell such an obvious lie, but so far no one has ever   
   >>presented a respectable one.   
   >>   
   >>>>>Don't make excuses for your dishonesty.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    I didn't make anything that even appears to be an excuse for anything,   
   so   
   >>>>again you're the one being dishonest. What I DID DO was to challenge you   
   with   
   >>>>things that defeated you and always do defeat ALL OF YOU so absolutely and   
   >>>>entirely that you can't even attempt to meet the challenges, much less   
   overcome   
   >>>>them. AGAIN you have shown me to be correct, and you have shown that you   
   are   
   >>>>ashamed of your failings as I correctly pointed out.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>                                                    BUT!!!!!!   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Those challenges still remain. So you still have a chance to try   
   providing   
   >>>>evidence that something I pointed out might not be entirely correct, and   
   that   
   >>>>you might be able to address one or more of the challenges that so far have   
   >>>>defeated you entirely. This goes for ALL OF YOU!!! The challenges still   
   remain   
   >>>>open for ANY OF YOU to try to address and overcome.   
   >>>   
   >>>You challenge   
   >>   
   >>    I challenge ANY AND ALL OF YOU, and that challenge defeats every one of   
   you   
   >>so entirely that you're afraid to attempt to address it.   
   >>   
   >>>is to explain why you need to lie about your god's existence.   
   >>   
   >>    God might exist and that's a fact. Saying it's not a fact is a blatant   
   lie.   
   >>There might be a God associated with Earth and that's a fact. Saying it's   
   not a   
   >>fact is a blatant lie.   
   >   
   >  You know, I'm late to this 'battle' but I can't see that god might   
   >exist, is a fact.   
      
       Accepting that particular fact is a basic starting line that I have yet to   
   see any atheist get as "far" as. There are more also.   
      
   >I would call it more of an unsupported assertion.   
      
       What supports it is another fact which is that no one can know if there is   
   no God associated with Earth even if there indeed is not, much less could   
   anyone   
   know there are no Gods associated with any other aspects of the universe. What   
   you said shows that you have great faith in one possibility being the correct   
   one, but you have no evidence to support your faith. Also, you may be and   
   probably are in the amusing position of considering your faith to somehow be   
   "knowledge" even though there's no way you could have found out if there really   
   is no God associated with this planet.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)