XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:52:07 -0700, 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."   
      
   "As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition   
   were true, then means the proposition is not true." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"   
      
   "If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be   
   physical evidence thereof." - Malte Runz   
      
   >   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.   
      
       LOL!!! You think like a very young child, at "best".   
      
   >That's easy stuff for a universe creator.   
      
       You have no idea whether it is or not for one thing. That much I know for   
   certain. Now you need to explain WHY it would be in his best interest to do   
   what   
   you childishly suggested he should do if he exists. Try doing that.   
      
   >   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.   
      
       Like in the Old Testament.   
      
   >But the reality is exactly as if a god does not   
   >exist.   
      
       It's also as if a God did openly interact with humans for a while and then   
   stopped doing so.   
      
   >>>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.   
      
       LOL!!! So you're saying all you atheists think if God really did exist he   
   would regrow lost limbs in 5 seconds. HILARIOUS!!! Why do you think he would   
   regrow an entire limb in less time than it takes broken bones to heal, does   
   your   
   infantile little mind have any idea about that?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)