XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:12:13 -0700, knight@baawa.com wrote:   
   .   
   >On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:05:19 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>    For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of   
   >>God's existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when challenged to try   
   to   
   >>explain WHAT sort of evidence they think "should be" where, they can't even   
   >>address the challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed evidence   
   >>"should be" they again are helpless. When challenged to explain WHY it   
   "should   
   >>be" to God's benefit to provide us with it AGAIN they have no clue at all   
   what   
   >>they think they think, or even what they want other people to think they   
   think   
   >>they think. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of   
   >>atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, nor can they   
   as a   
   >>group figure out what they think they're trying to talk about. Why is it sad?   
   >>Because it would be interesting to learn what they thought they were trying   
   to   
   >>talk about IF they had any idea themselves. We've seen that they don't.   
   >   
   >   Great post. One of the most perfect Strawman creations I have ever   
   >seen.   
      
       Instead of simply maundering unsupportable claims, try to support your   
   claim. Or better yet, try to address the challenge and explain: WHAT sort of   
   evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY   
   you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he   
   exists.   
      
   >If I could I would upvote you so your stupidity   
      
       I challenge you to try providing evidence that what I pointed out is   
   incorrect.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)