XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:13:52 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >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?   
      
       Yes, or even admit what their position actually is. I guess it's likely   
   enough we're dealing with people who have always been liars and cheats,   
   probably   
   learned as children because that's how their families behave, and they've never   
   known anything else.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)