XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 19:48:51 -0700, knight@baawa.com wrote:   
   .   
   >On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:49:32 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 20:15:34 -0700, knight@baawa.com wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 14:50:31 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>snip most of the idiocy.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>disclaimer: the stupid bullshit about God re-growing amputated limbs on   
   demand   
   >>>>does not count   
   >>>   
   >>>   It doesn't 'count'? Why not!?   
   >>   
   >>    Because it's stupid. You might as well claim that people should get   
   ANYTHING   
   >>they pray for EVERY TIME they pray. If you think not, then try to explain how   
   >>you want people to think growing limbs back is so unique and special.   
   >>   
   >>>   Idiot. Evidence of a god should  be OBVIOUS to all humans. Not a   
   >>>conglomeration of ancient texts, conflicting dogmas and broken up   
   >>>sects.   
   >>   
   >>    Tell me why you people want other people to think that if amputated limbs   
   >>DID grow back for humans as they do for some other creatures, it would be any   
   >>more evidence of God's existence than it is that bones heal when they are   
   >>broken.   
   >   
   >   Fuck ...  you are really thick in the head.   
   >   
   >   You are psychotically anti-proof of a god, insist there is one   
      
       That's a blatant lie, so you lose by forfeit. Every time you lie you lose   
   by   
   forfeit because when you lie like that you are actually quiting by changing the   
   subject to a lie. You might just as well have quit by changing the subject to   
   the color of your kitchen floor.   
      
   >and   
   >demand evidence of how to prove.. from atheists... what the evidence   
   >would be to prove it   
      
       You're still lying. I challenge atheists to explain what type of evidence   
   they think there should be if God does exist, where they think it should be,   
   and   
   why they think it should be to God's benefit to provide it. Atheists have no   
   idea what they think they're trying to talk about, and they prove it   
   consistently. The challenge to try to explain what they think they're trying to   
   talk about defeats them completely and entirely EVERY time it's presented.   
      
   >and then move the goal posts when atheists   
   >answer.   
      
       Provide examples of the supposed answers.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)