XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:02:21 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:
.
>On 03-July-2014 1:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:54:16 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:
>>
>>> On 27-June-2014 12:52 PM, knight@baawa.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:59:36 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:12:13 -0700, knight@baawa.com wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:05:19 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding
"evidence" of
>>>>>>> God's existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when challenged
to try to
>>>>>>> explain WHAT sort of evidence they think "should be" where, they can't
even
>>>>>>> address the challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed
evidence
>>>>>>> "should be" they again are helpless. When challenged to explain WHY it
"should
>>>>>>> be" to God's benefit to provide us with it AGAIN they have no clue at
all what
>>>>>>> they think they think, or even what they want other people to think
they think
>>>>>>> they think. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire
group of
>>>>>>> atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, nor can
they as a
>>>>>>> group figure out what they think they're trying to talk about. Why is
it sad?
>>>>>>> Because it would be interesting to learn what they thought they were
trying to
>>>>>>> talk about IF they had any idea themselves. We've seen that they don't.
>>>>>>     Great post. One of the most perfect Strawman creations I have ever
>>>>>> seen.
>>>>>      Instead of simply maundering unsupportable claims, try to support
your
>>>>> claim. Or better yet, try to address the challenge and 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.
>>>>>
>>>>      Strawman =
>>>>
>>>> "You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
>>>>
>>>> By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating
>>>> someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as
>>>> being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine
>>>> honest rational debate."
>>>>
>>>>      We have painfully pointed out what sort of evidence we need to
>>>> prove there is a god. Pray and five seconds later an arm grows back.
>>>> That's easy stuff for a universe creator.
>>>>
>>>>      The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
>>>> we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
>>>> interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
>>>> exist.
>>> but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
>>> ppl who believe in and worship God? you're claiming in essence that
>>> that's meaningless, purposeless, and inefficacious. you have to deny the
>>> plethora of testimony to assert that, or else claim that ALL the
>>> testimonial evidence is false.
>>      Here we have yet another example where we're forced to wonder if the
person
>> is really stupid enough to believe his claim, or dishonestly pretending to
be
>> more stupid than he actually is. It seems to come down to that a very high
>> percentage of the time.
>>
>
>It certainly does! I must admit I didn't take much notice when you first
>raised this point, but it's now becoming very obvious how true it is.

    From my pov it seems they are more dishonest than stupid the majority of
the
time. That leads to other questions, like if they have to lie about their own
postion it seems they must not like it, so why don't they try to change it to
something their not so ashamed of?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)