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)