XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:06:27 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   ...   
      
   >I'm not interested in arguing with you and defending myself point by   
   >point against your criticisms. my contention has always been that there   
   >is evidence for the existence of God (just as there is evidence for   
      
   Yes, that is your contention, but when you are invited to show us that   
   evidence, you make it clear that you have no such evidence and that you   
   know that there is no evidence that any gods exist, not even the one you   
   capitalize. Why do you claim there is evidence when it is clear that you   
   know there is no evidence?   
      
   >Nessie, UFO's, etc.,) contrary to what (some? many?) atheists claim that   
   >there is NO evidence. that is all I have sought to address. you're right   
   >when you said I am not interested in the validity of the evidence,   
      
   So you support the idea of presenting non-evidence at evidence? Why?   
   What good do fraudulent claims do?   
      
   >because that is another matter. I am not an apologist for the existence   
   >of God. i simply seek to address the bias and irrationality of atheists,   
   >and their lack of objectivity. atheists are wrong when they claim there   
   >is NO evidence for God. it's just plain silly to claim that.   
      
   There is no evidence. This is not an atheist claim, many (I don't know   
   if it is most) believers acknowledge that their faith is completely   
   unsupported by evidence. You know you cannot present any evidence. Why   
   fight reality?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)