XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 15:34:18 +0100, grabber  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 04/10/2014 01:06, felix_unger wrote:   
   >   
   >> I'm not interested in arguing with you and defending myself point by point   
   >   
   >Yes, I'd noticed.   
   >   
   >But there is only one point here, which is that only argument you are   
   >making is not concerned with any point of substance, is limited to a   
   >futile dispute over the meaning of a particular word.   
   >   
   >If you had any substantive point to make against the sceptical position   
   >that some people here take, then you could easily do so without getting   
   >tripped up by this word, but you yourself admit that you aren't   
   >interested in making any such point.   
   >   
   >So what do you imagine you are contributing?   
   >   
   >> against your criticisms. my contention has always been that there   
   >> is evidence for the existence of God (just as there is evidence for   
   >> 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,   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >But you don't address any such things. You only address the fact that   
   >they use a sense of the word "evidence" that you think they shouldn't.   
   >You aren't even trying to address any substantive point.   
   >   
   >> atheists are wrong when they claim there   
   >> is NO evidence for God. it's just plain silly to claim that.   
   >   
   >What do you think they mean by "evidence" when they claim that?   
      
       They don't mean anything. I've challenged them countless times to try   
   explaining WHAT type of evidence atheists think there "should be". WHERE   
   atheists think the evidence they beg for "should be". WHY atheists think it   
   "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with whatever particular   
   evidence they keep whining about, and they have ALL proven without question   
   that   
   they don't have the slightest idea what they think they're trying to talk   
   about.   
   YOU ALSO have no idea what they think they're trying to talk about. NO ONE has   
   any idea what they think they're trying to talk about, because no one can   
   imagine what they think they're trying to talk about including them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)