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

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 22:23:35 -0700, Jeanne Douglas 
wrote:
.
>In article , mur.@.not.
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:20:53 -0700, Jeanne Douglas 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article , mur.@.not.
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 09:35:54 -0500, Free Lunch wussed horribly:
>> >>
>> >> >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?
>> >>
>> >>     Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be",
>> >>     WHERE
>> >>     you
>> >> think it "should be",
>> >
>> >Something objective and verifiable. How many times do you have to be
>> >told that?
>>
>>     No one has any idea including you. Apparently you wish you could fool
>>     people
>> into thinking you have some idea, but as you try to create the impression
>> that
>> you do the fact that you don't is also revealed and you make it clear you
>> have
>> no idea. No one has any idea what sort of evidence you people think you're
>> trying to talk about...not those of you who demand it, and not those of us
>> you
>> demand it from. NO ONE has any idea what you people think you're trying to
>> talk
>> about, and NO ONE can even pretend that they do.
>
>
>That IS the point. Until you give us something that will convince us to
>believe, we have no idea what you're talking about.

    And until you can say what evidence you think should exist, where it should
be, and/or why it should be wherever no one has any idea what you're trying to
talk about. At least there are people who do know what evidence we refer to
when
we point out the evidence that's good enough for less mentally challenged
people, but NO ONE knows what you think you're trying to talk about when you
demand more, including you! We tell you about what there is, and in contrast to
that you can't even imagine what more you think there should be, or where, or
why. You apparently don't like being in that particular position but it's the
position ALL OF YOU are in none the less, and it's been made clear that none of
you are able to move beyond it.

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