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

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 01:01:38 -0400, Olrik  wrote:
.
>Le 2014-09-13 11:57, mur@.not. a écrit :
>> 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. So that's the most blatant of all. Probably the next
most
>> blatant is to lie that no one has told any of you what evidence there is.
Even
>> after having it pointed out for you you people often lie that none have ever
>> been presented. You might like to say that's all just one lie, but it's two
>> different lies. The first lie is a lie about the condition of this planet we
>> live on, lying that there's no evidence of God anywhere on it. The second
is a
>> lie about the people who post here, lying that they haven't done what they
have
>> done. Then there are those of you who lie that you know God doesn't exist,
when
>> it's obvious that no one could know that even if it's true. Then there are
those
>> who lie that they've provided proof that God doesn't exist, which again is
>> something that can't be done. Another common lie is for someone who has
made it
>> clear they believe God does not exist, to lie that they have no belief. Then
>> there are those who lie that we don't understand the difference between
having
>> no belief, and believing God doesn't exist. Those are some of the lies.
>
>You abuse the English language.
>
>Redeem yourself by providing evidence of that «god» you talk about.

    Try to 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.

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