XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:54:16 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 27-June-2014 12:52 PM, knight@baawa.com wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:59:36 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>     Strawman =   
   >>   
   >> "You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.   
   >>   
   >> By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating   
   >> someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as   
   >> being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine   
   >> honest rational debate."   
   >>   
   >>     We have painfully pointed out what sort of evidence we need to   
   >> prove there is a god. Pray and five seconds later an arm grows back.   
   >> That's easy stuff for a universe creator.   
   >>   
   >>     The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed   
   >> we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and   
   >> interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not   
   >> exist.   
   >   
   >but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of   
   >ppl who believe in and worship God? you're claiming in essence that   
   >that's meaningless, purposeless, and inefficacious. you have to deny the   
   >plethora of testimony to assert that, or else claim that ALL the   
   >testimonial evidence is false.   
      
       Here we have yet another example where we're forced to wonder if the person   
   is really stupid enough to believe his claim, or dishonestly pretending to be   
   more stupid than he actually is. It seems to come down to that a very high   
   percentage of the time.   
      
   >>>> If I could I would upvote you so your stupidity   
   >>>     I challenge you to try providing evidence that what I pointed out is   
   >>> incorrect.   
   >>     I already did.   
   >>   
   >> Warlord Steve   
   >> BAAWA   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)