XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: olrik666@yahoo.com   
      
   Le 2014-07-17 18:15, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   > On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:08:59 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   > .   
   >> Le 2014-07-08 12:02, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 23:42:38 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >>> .   
   >>>> Le 2014-07-02 11:24, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:54:57 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Le 2014-06-26 16:59, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:30:27 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>> Le 2014-06-24 11:05, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>>>          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.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It looks like you're asking us to provide you with an excuse *not* to   
   >>>>>>>> believe in «god».   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>         It's not unreasonable to want to know what sort of evidence   
   people think   
   >>>>>>> there should be, or where they think it should be, or why they think   
   it should   
   >>>>>>> be to God's benefit to provide it. They just don't have any idea. The   
   failure   
   >>>>>>> isn't in asking them what they think there should be...the failure is   
   in them   
   >>>>>>> having no idea what they think there should be. Especially since it's   
   obvious   
   >>>>>>> that if God does exist he doesn't feel that it's best to provide proof   
   that he   
   >>>>>>> does. Yet! Maybe at some other points in time. Maybe he felt is was   
   good to   
   >>>>>>> provide proof enough for people to write cannonical texts centuries   
   ago, and   
   >>>>>>> possibly more proof at some point in the future, but not at the   
   present time. In   
   >>>>>>> fact if he does exist it seems fairly obvious that that's how it is.   
   So it's not   
   >>>>>>> unreasonable to ask people how they think it should be different   
   instead. They   
   >>>>>>> just don't have any idea how they think it should be different   
   instead, and   
   >>>>>>> they're all consistently proving it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The way I see it, that «god» thingy can do whatever it wants. Including   
   >>>>>> whatever anyone would want it to do.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>        If you believe that if God actually does exist you believe he   
   "should" do   
   >>>>> whatever you ask him to do, immediately, and every time you ask him to do   
   >>>>> something, then say so directly so we can quote you on it. If you think   
   it   
   >>>>> "should be" some variation of that then try explaining how.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Theists of all creeds think they know how their «INSERT DEITY NAME»   
   >>>> works, thinks, should say, should do, or whatever.   
   >>>   
   >>>       So you have no idea how you think things should be different if God   
   exists.   
   >>   
   >> It depends on the definition of that «god» thing.   
   >>   
   >> If your «god» existed, life would me like a Harry Potter book.   
   >>   
   >> Think about it.   
   >   
   >      To me it would be like it is if he wanted to allow us to have freedom of   
   > thought and not be like slaves to him. It would be nothing like a Harry   
   Potter   
   > book or humans would be slaves to magic and God and whatever else. If he   
   exists   
      
   So you're not sure yourself, right? You an agnostic of some sort?   
      
   > and wants things to be as they are, which seems most likely, then they would   
   be   
   > as they are. It's amusing, but also pathetic, that such an easy and logical   
   > concept is incomprehensible to you people.   
      
   Oh we understand perfectly: everything is as designed by the «god». It's   
   so perfect that way, don't you think?   
      
   > You just can't comprehend how Earth   
   > could possibly be as it is if God really does exist.   
      
   ?   
      
   > Just describing the   
   > position you people are in is very amusing, but very pathetic as well.   
      
   You're amusing.   
      
      
   --   
   Olrik   
   aa #1981   
   EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)