XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: me@nothere.biz

On 09-July-2014 2:03 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
> 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?

exactly. if they are so comfortable with their position, why such
hostility towards anyone who disagrees with them?

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg
“People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”

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