XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:31:31 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
.
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:07:56 -0500, mur wrote:
>
>>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
>
>So you repeatedly allege, but never manage to show that I am wrong.
In contrast to that lie I even point out how YOU manage to show that you
are
wrong.
>>and you lying about it is some of that evidence.
>
>But you _know_ I am not lying.
I know that you are, and now know that you're lying about the fact that I'm
aware of it.
>You can go sell your religious pabulum on
>a religious group and no one questions you, but here we can see that you
>are spewing nonsense.
Present your supposed quotes.
>>There's also no reason to think the proof you're really asking for should be
>>available to humans.
>
>I did not ask for proof. I noted there was no evidence. You whined.
I point out that you're lying.
>You allege that there is no reason to assume that an actual deity would
>allow evidence to exist, but that seems to be special pleading because
Because and ONLY because your overly resticted little mind can't comprehend
much less appreciate ANY reasons why God would not provide proof of his
existence to everyone if there truly is a God associated with Earth. That's not
the only thing you're mentally restricted from comprehending and appreciating,
but you've certainly displayed the fact that it's one of them.
. . .
>>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.
>
>Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that you know exactly what
>evidence is and that you have none. Stop making excuses. Stop trying to
>allege that your deity went out of its way to hide.
In contrast to that most blatant of lies I've never even suggested that he
did. In fact I've suggested just the opposite and can't believe that you're too
stupid to be aware of that. If you are then you'll display that fact for us,
but
if you're not too stupid then tell me what I really have said about that
aspect.
>Is your deity that afraid of people?
Could you truly be so stupid that you can honestly imagine God being afraid
of people, but can't think of a single other reason why he wouldn't provide
proof of his existence yet?
>>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.
>
>There's no evidence that any deities exist, not even Satan.
YOU are evidence.
>Your religion is without foundation and you tell us that is because your
>deity hid the evidence. How silly of you.
That lie is horribly blatantly dishonest of you, unless you can provide
evidence that I told you God hid any evidence. When you can't, it will be proof
that again you lied blatantly. What do you think you gain by lying to me about
things I know and you prove that you're lying about, do you have any idea at
all
about that?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
