XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: me@nothere.biz
On 03-July-2014 1:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
> 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.
>
It certainly does! I must admit I didn't take much notice when you first
raised this point, but it's now becoming very obvious how true it is.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg
“People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
