XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:45:05 -0400, Olrik wrote:
.
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:15:53 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>
>>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?
I'm a weak agnostic, meaning that I believe some people could know the
truth
about it if God does exist. No one could know if he does not, but some could
know it if he does.
>>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:
What you're trying to get people to believe is that you atheists understand
why God would not provide solid evidence of his existence even when you demand
it. Please say that specifically so I can quote you accurately about it.
>everything is as designed by the «god». It's
>so perfect that way, don't you think?
If he provided proof of his existence we would be more like slaves than
being able to enjoy the freedoms of thought we do have. That doesn't mean it's
perfect, but from my pov it's probably better than the more slavelike
alternative you people beg for. I can appreciate that. You people can't
comprehend it, much less appreciate it.
>>You just can't comprehend how Earth
>>could possibly be as it is if God really does exist.
>
>?
I'll try to make it more clear for you, even though the way I put it is
clear enough that anyone should be able to comprehend:
You can't comprehend how Earth could possibly be THE WAY IT IS if God does
exist.
>>Just describing the
>>position you people are in is very amusing, but very pathetic as well.
>
>You're amusing.
LOL....you find things you can't comprehend to be amusing then. It's
amusing
to think of you sitting around laughing your ass off when people explain things
to you that you can't understand....LOL....
>>>> You don't have any idea what evidence you think there should be, or
anything
>>>> like that. None of you have any idea what you think you're trying to talk
about.
>>>>
>>>>> It's all crapola to the Nth degree.
>>>>
>>>> All you have to go on is a guess you have no support for, and no
evidence
>>>> that it's correct.
>>>>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
