XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:18:34 -0700, Bob Casanova wussed horribly:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:22:07 -0400, mur@.not. challenged the horrible wusses:   
   >   
   >>On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:25:29 -0700, Bob Casanova wussed horribly:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:54:19 -0400,  mur@.not. challenged the horrible   
   wusses:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:23:51 -0700, Bob Casanova wussed horribly:   
   >>>>.   
   >>>>>On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:34:26 -0400, mur@.not. challenged the horrible   
   wusses:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:06:26 -0700, Bob Casanova wussed horribly:   
   >>>>>>.   
   >>>>>>>On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:50:05 -0400, mur@.not. challenged the horrible   
   wusses:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:56:28 -0700, Bob Casanova wussed horribly:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 14:50:31 -0400, mur@.not. challenged the horrible   
   wusses:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>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.   
   >>>   
   >>>Sorry, but no   
   >>   
   >>    That's a repeat of the desperately blatant lie which proves that none of   
   you   
   >>have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about when you demand   
   >>evidence,   
   >   
   >Yes, it is   
      
       Every one of you continues to prove me correct, consistently.   
      
   >>and can't even pretend you do. Repeating the desperate lie is proof   
   >>that you're ashamed of your position, as you certainly should be.   
   ...   
   >your attempt to shift the goalposts   
   >away from your claim that evidence exists in support of the   
   >existence of a deity.   
      
       You're lying blatantly when you try to pretend I haven't pointed out some   
   of   
   the evidence. As I've pointed out for you before life itself is evidence. All   
   accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles recorded in the Bible are   
   evidence.   
   All saints are evidence. Atheists are evidence. All medical miracles are   
   evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. But you   
   don't like the evidence I point out for you You lie that it's not evidence, and   
   then even more conteptibly and childishly lie that I never presented it,   
   because   
   you are a horrible wuss. So NOW AGAIN I challenge your horrible wuss ass to try   
   to 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)