XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: olrik666@yahoo.com   
      
   Le 2014-06-26 16:59, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:30:27 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   > .   
   >> Le 2014-06-24 11:05, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>       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.   
   >>   
   >> It looks like you're asking us to provide you with an excuse *not* to   
   >> believe in «god».   
   >   
   >      It's not unreasonable to want to know what sort of evidence people think   
   > there should be, or where they think it should be, or why they think it   
   should   
   > be to God's benefit to provide it. They just don't have any idea. The failure   
   > isn't in asking them what they think there should be...the failure is in them   
   > having no idea what they think there should be. Especially since it's obvious   
   > that if God does exist he doesn't feel that it's best to provide proof that   
   he   
   > does. Yet! Maybe at some other points in time. Maybe he felt is was good to   
   > provide proof enough for people to write cannonical texts centuries ago, and   
   > possibly more proof at some point in the future, but not at the present   
   time. In   
   > fact if he does exist it seems fairly obvious that that's how it is. So it's   
   not   
   > unreasonable to ask people how they think it should be different instead.   
   They   
   > just don't have any idea how they think it should be different instead, and   
   > they're all consistently proving it.   
      
   The way I see it, that «god» thingy can do whatever it wants. Including   
   whatever anyone would want it to do.   
      
   There are billions of believers in some «gods». 100% will die. 100% will   
   think they'll go to paradise, whilst other believers will say they went   
   to hell. And vice versa.   
      
   Chose you «god» wisely!   
      
   But remember : the pasta exists to complement the sauce! Think about it!   
      
   --   
   Olrik   
   aa #1981   
   EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)