XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:38:10 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 03-December-2014 1:38 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 10:22:38 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On 25-November-2014 11:03 AM, Chicken wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >>>> news:cdhjvaFntp3U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>> (loads of snippage)   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> "I showed an example of evidence that proves god does not exist." -   
   >>>>>> Malte Runz   
   >>>>>> "Don't you read what I actually write? God as an alien is NOT a new   
   >>>>>> concept   
   >>>>>> to me. It's roughly 40 years since I first heard of Erich van   
   >>>>> Dänekin > and   
   >>>>>> all that crap. Don't think you're ahead of me in that department."   
   >>>>> - > Malte Runz   
   >>>>>> "Aaaaarrrrghhhhh! I have written, at least ten times, in various   
   >>>>> posts, > that   
   >>>>>> I believe it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures   
   >>>>> in > the   
   >>>>>> universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to   
   >>>>> us. > The   
   >>>>>> idea is not new to me. Why the hell do you claim that I believe the   
   >>>>>> exact   
   >>>>>> opposite?" - Malte Runz   
   >>>>>> "the utter lack of evidence is enough for me to believe that there   
   >>>>> are > no gods.   
   >>>>>> Anywhere, anywhen." - Malte Runz   
   >>>>>> "How many times do I need to write: "I believe no gods exist"" -   
   >>>>> Malte > Runz   
   >>>>>> "I must insist that you distinguish between Biblical God and   
   >>>>>> Advanced Alien God." - Malte Runz   
   >>>>>> "I showed an example of evidence that proves god does not exist." -   
   >>>>>> Malte Runz   
   >>>>>> "If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be   
   >>>>>> physical evidence thereof." - Malte Runz   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> many thanks. I knew you could back up what I said. :)   
   >>>> Well, that's a really nice collection of quotes your pet idiot keeps.   
   >>> atheists are such miserable people, they hate to think that others can   
   >>> be happy and have some connection or agreement with others, so they need   
   >>> to deride it   
   >>>   
   >>>> He must have a lot a free time on his hands. But where is the lie   
   >>> I already told you that I don't recall what I had in mind specifically   
   >>> when I said that, and even withdrew it to make you happy,   
   >>      So you honestly believe that Chicken "showed an example of evidence   
   that   
   >> proves god does not exist."   
   >   
   >no, not at all   
      
       I'm glad you don't. He did not and could not of course.   
      
   >>   Do you have any idea what that example is, or do you   
   >> just take his word for it that he didn't lie about it? I don't take his   
   word for   
   >> it, believe that he did lie about it, and have challenged him a number of   
   times   
   >> to try to provide some evidence that he wasn't lying horribly when he made   
   the   
   >> claim. He could never attempt to address the challenge, but if you think he   
   >> didn't lie   
   >   
   >well, yes it is a lie isn't it   
      
       An extremely blatant lie, yes. Chicken himself consistently makes that   
   clear   
   every time he's challenged on it.   
      
   >>   and think you know what that example was, then I'd like to see you   
   >> present it even though he could never do it for himself.   
   >>   
   >>> but since   
   >>> making atheists happy is a near impossibility, if even possible at all,   
   >>      I feel certain you made him very happy by doubting that he lied about   
   that   
   >> particular horribly dishonest claim.   
   >   
   >I never intended to convey that impression. these ppl (and discussions)   
   >get me confused. it's what they want to do, since all they're about is   
   >trying to dismiss any idea or suggestion that God exists, and they do   
   >this by trying to complicate the issues, as we have seen with the   
   >discussion about evidence, and yes, by simply lying.   
      
       Lying it pretty much what they do. The biggest difference is how they   
   present their lies, not how much truth there is to them, though the particular   
   lie we're discussing right now is about as blatant a lie as it's possible to   
   tell. Do you think Chicken is somehow proud of that?   
      
   >> Why else would a person tell such a   
   >> horribly blatant lie if it wouldn't make them happy if they somehow could   
   get   
   >> someone to believe they weren't lying? He probably wasn't quite stupid   
   enough to   
   >> think he ever could get anyone to believe it when he told it to begin with,   
   so   
   >> you now indicating that you believe he might not have been lying is almost   
   >> certain to delight him more than he had thought possible when he first told   
   that   
   >> very stupid lie.   
   >>   
   >>> you still want to bitch and moan about it   
   >>>   
   >>>> and where is the contradiction?   
   >>> and I already also said mur had evidence that you contradict yourself   
   >>>   
   >>>> Let me guess: 'LOL... Everything you say is evidence that you lie and   
   >>>> contradict yourself. ROFL LOL!!! My main man mur says so. LOL OMG   
   >>>> ROFLMAO!!'   
   >>> he's da man!..   
   >>>   
   >>>> The question remains. Do you have the balls to pick one (1) example of   
   >>>> each from the list above and defend yourself? Of course you don't...   
   >>>> you never have.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>> as I said, I based my remark on the fact that mur said you contradicted   
   >>> yourself. perhaps that list is incomplete or inconclusive   
   >>      May be. I have challenged Chicken a number of times to try to explain   
   how he   
   >> thinks he disagrees with himself about the following:   
   >>   
   >> "I believe it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures in the   
   >> universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to us." -   
   >> Chicken   
   >>   
   >> "the utter lack of evidence is enough for me to believe that there are no   
   gods.   
   >> Anywhere, anywhen." - Chicken   
   >   
   >not exactly a contradiction tho since the first refers to 'god-like   
   >creatures' and the second to 'gods'   
      
       Chicken can't think realistically about the possibility that there's a God   
   of any type associated with this planet or any other, as he has told us. Not   
   now   
   or ever, "anywhere or anywhen", as he has told us. To think someone that is so   
   severly mentally resticted could make some sort of realistic and somewhat   
   sensible distinction between a god and god-like creatures is giving the person   
   far more credit than they deserve from my pov. But if you can get Chicken to   
   provide us with some sort of respectable distinction then I'd be interested in   
   what it is, to see if it means he somehow isn't disagreeing with himself.   
   However, if he can't provide a respectable description of what a god would be,   
   I   
   don't see how he could ever comprehend a realistic distinction. I've been   
   through that sort of thing with him before, and it's getting down to specifics   
   like that that made him cowardly cluck away.   
      
   >> yet he has been unable to make any attempt to explain. Now it appears that   
   you   
   >> believe he somehow agrees with himself. Maybe you can explain how Chicken   
   feels   
   >> "it is likely that there are" such beings some place(s) in the universe   
   while at   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)