XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 10:56:30 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:55:06 -0500, The.W@tcher wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:05:14 -0400, 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>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.   
   >>   
   >>This is to make note of the fact that since posting this observation these   
   news   
   >>group atheists are _still_  (10/31/14 - 1/09/15)  in undeniable ruination,   
   the   
   >>simple challenge referred to above having brought about their complete and   
   total   
   >>defeat in ever sense of the word.   
   >   
   >There is no evidence for any deity.   
      
       There's plenty of evidence and you lying about it is some of that evidence.   
   There's also no reason to think the proof you're really asking for should be   
   available to humans. There's also the fact that as he/she pointed out you   
   people   
   don't have the slightest clue what sort of "evidence" you think should exist,   
   or   
   where it should be, or why it should be available to humans, or when it should   
   be or should have been made available if there really is a God associated with   
   Earth. So the only thing you "have" is a horribly blatant lie, and then more   
   lying in your attempts to support the first one, all of which at the same time   
   making YOU evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan's existence   
   and influence on your own weak puny mind.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)