XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >On 14/09/2014 1:57 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:14:54 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> Le 2014-09-10 14:47, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>       Would they be able to post at all?   
   >>>   
   >>> What lies?   
   >>   
   >>      All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for   
   God's   
   >> existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for   
   >> anyone to believe in.   
   >   
   >The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence   
   >of evidence.   
   >   
   >As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just   
   >leaves open the question of why people believe.   
      
       If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to believe.   
   That's so obvious it seems even an atheist should be able to get that "far",   
   but   
   as yet I haven't known any to be able to. What if one could? What if one could   
   explain WHAT type of evidence atheists think there "should be"? WHERE do   
   atheists think the evidence they beg for "should be"? WHY do atheists think it   
   "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with whatever particular   
   evidence they keep whining about?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)