XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:23:51 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:34:26 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:06:26 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:50:05 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>in sci.skeptic, posted by mur@.not.:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:56:28 -0700, Bob Casanova wussed horribly:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 14:50:31 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by mur@.not.:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>When challenged directly and specifically about the supposed   
   >>>>>>evidence they think should exist...   
   >>>   
   >>>>>It's up to the claimant (that's you) to provide the evidence   
   >>>>>to support the claim. Provide the evidence you think you   
   >>>>>have and we can discuss it; it's *your* responsibility to   
   >>>>>support your contention. *You* think you have evidence;   
   >>>>>*you* provide it.   
   >>>   
   >>>>    Then why isn't it up to the atheist to explain WHAT he thinks he's   
   trying to   
   >>>>talk about?   
   >>>   
   >>>Because it's up to the claimant (that's you) to provide the   
   >>>evidence to support the claim.   
   >>   
   >>    The claim is that none of you have any idea what you think you're trying   
   to   
   >>talk about when you demand evidence of God's existence, and every one of you   
   has   
   >>provided proof that what I pointed out is correct. My claim has been proven   
   true   
   >>by ALL OF YOU.   
   >   
   >Sorry, but no;   
      
       That's a blatant lie.   
      
   >that's your attempt to shift the goalposts   
      
       YOU are trying to wuss away from my challenge which has defeated every one   
   of you completely and entirely proving that NONE OF YOU have any idea what kind   
   of evidence you think there should be, where you think it should be, or why you   
   think it should be. It really is a shame about that too, because I'd like to   
   know what any of you think you're trying to imagine. But as it turns out, none   
   of you have any idea what you think you're trying to imagine at all...no idea   
   what you think you're trying to talk about.   
   ...   
   >>>You can keep calling me a "wuss"   
   >>   
   >>    EVERY ONE OF YOU has been able to do nothing more than to wuss horribly   
   as   
   >>you all prove that you haven't got any idea at all what you think you're   
   trying   
   >>to talk about.   
   >>   
   >>>for continually pointing   
   >>>this out, but your ignorance and constant goalpost shifting   
   >>>are your problem, not mine.   
   >>   
   >>    You have no idea what sort of evidence you think there should be or   
   where if   
   >>God exists, and you have no idea why you think he should provide it. You   
   think   
   >>there should be some, but you have no idea what you think you're trying to   
   talk   
   >>about. That is true of every one of you, and every one of you has proven   
   that it   
   >>is. You've proven it so completely in fact that none of you can even attempt   
   to   
   >>pretend that it's not true.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)