XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 09-July-2014 2:03 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   > On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:02:21 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
   > ..   
   >> 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.   
   >      From my pov it seems they are more dishonest than stupid the majority   
   of the   
   > time. That leads to other questions, like if they have to lie about their own   
   > postion it seems they must not like it, so why don't they try to change it to   
   > something their not so ashamed of?   
      
   exactly. if they are so comfortable with their position, why such   
   hostility towards anyone who disagrees with them?   
      
   --   
   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)