XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:47:25 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 16-January-2015 9:08 AM, mur wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:53:28 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On 11-January-2015 5:11 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:49:22 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>> ..   
   >>>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:48:47 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:35:21 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:15:38 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:23:45 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:26 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>>>>>      No. If there is a designer then it's pretty obvious that he   
   made use of the   
   >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary method of developing life on this planet, even though   
   we can't jump   
   >>>>>>>>>> in the "lab" with him and see exactly how he went about making it   
   take place.   
   >>>>>>>>>> That's one of the basic starting lines atheists are unable to get   
   as "far" as.   
   >>>>>>>>>> Can you?   
   >>>>>>>>> Show us your evidence that a designer did something. As far as I can   
   >>>>>>>>> tell, your argument is that science is right, but that you want to   
   add a   
   >>>>>>>>> designer that you have absolutely no evidence for, a designer that is   
   >>>>>>>>> indistinguishable from nothing   
   >>>>>>>>      Yet WE have no reason to believe the proof you demand should be   
   available to   
   >>>>>>>> humans, much less do any of us have any idea what you're imaginig it   
   should be,   
   >>>>>>>> or where it should be, or why it should be available to us, or when   
   it should   
   >>>>>>>> have been or should be made available. Your supposed criticism means   
   NOTHING,   
   >>>>>>>> and you can't even pretend it does mean anything as you consistently   
   prove every   
   >>>>>>>> time you're challenged on it.   
   >>>>>>> I never demand proof. I ask for evidence.   
   >>>>>>      YOU ARE evidence.   
   >>>>> You keep making that foolish claim. Repeating it ten thousand times will   
   >>>>> not make it true.   
   >>>>       Pointing out that I keep pointing it out won't make the fact stop   
   being   
   >>>> true. Nothing will or can make it stop being true, in fact.   
   >>> his claim that it's untrue (whether it is or not) does not make it   
   >>> untrue, just as his claim of 'no evidence' for God does not make any   
   >>> evidence disappear!   
   >>      His own dishonesty is what makes HIM evidence. The dishonesty of so   
   many   
   >> atheists in general is what makes THEM evidence, and the high number of   
   people   
   >> being so blatantly dishonest supports the fact that they ARE evidence.   
   >   
   >I agree. but to make it simpler for them to understand, we could say   
   >that they are evidence for the contention that Satan exerts his (it's?)   
   >evil influence on the minds of men (and women of course). this is   
   >without claiming that Satan does actually exist, of course.   
   >   
   >but from my perspective.. there is no doubt that evil exists in this   
   >world, and that it is a powerful destructive force. to talk about Satan   
   >or the devil is just a means of conveniently identifying or embodying   
   >that power or force. the fact that evil exists means that it has to have   
   >a source/come from somewhere   
      
   There are many things that are evil, but evil as a freely existing   
   something? That's silly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)