Discussion:
SAD defeat of the atheist community :-(
(too old to reply)
m***@.not.
2014-06-24 15:05:19 UTC
Permalink
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.
Catpain Merca
2014-06-24 15:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence"
of The Great Wallaby of Frink'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.
(with laughter)
Post by m***@.not.
When challenged to explain WHY it "should be" to Great Wallaby of
Frink'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.
You think so?
Post by m***@.not.
It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
(not our job)
Post by m***@.not.
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.
We've seen you don't O Molecule Mind. Hence our skepticism.

Hey it's your ficticious creation, you can assign it all the attributes
you want. If some of those are testable, then so much the better.

Catpain Merca
m***@.not.
2014-06-26 20:59:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:17:37 +0100, Catpain Merca <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
.
Post by Catpain Merca
Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence"
of The Great Wallaby of Frink'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.
(with laughter)
Post by m***@.not.
When challenged to explain WHY it "should be" to Great Wallaby of
Frink'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.
You think so?
Post by m***@.not.
It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
(not our job)
Post by m***@.not.
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.
We've seen you don't
Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. All medical
miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.

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.
b***@m.nu
2014-06-24 16:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
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
No atheists dont demand evidence oof your faries. Atheists dont want
or even need any evidence that there is or is not a god. Atheists know
that there is no god except the one that has formed out of delusion
that only lives inside your head.

secondly there isnt a shred of evidence that you can provide so it is
pretty much a moot point anyway.

And I was wondering why you think an atheist would beg for evidence of
gods existence when 1. There is none and an atheist will know that 2.
an atheist will know that god does not exist so why would an atheist
want you prove that it does? 3. God is a fairy that lives inside you
head much like Harry Potter, Buggs Bunny, and the Tooth Fairyand
finally 4. You are a total nutjob that think by coming to a.a you will
be able to make a difference.

I can promise that more people have been converted to atheist than
has to theist. What you dont realize is that once a person is an
atheist that person will always be an atheist. Much like you except
you are a moron and shall always remain a moron

<The rest of what you said was a bunch of nonsensical babble so I had
to snip that shit>
felix_unger
2014-06-26 09:19:28 UTC
Permalink
once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.
untrue
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
election results explained: Loading Image...
“People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”
b***@m.nu
2014-06-26 19:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.
untrue
I guess you know because you are an atheist?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.

No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth
m***@.not.
2014-06-26 20:59:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:02:23 -0500, monkey wrote:
.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by m***@.not.
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.
No atheists dont demand evidence
That's a blatant lie. What did you think you could gain by telling such a
blatant lie as that, do you have any idea?
Post by b***@m.nu
oof your faries. Atheists dont want
or even need any evidence that there is or is not a god. Atheists know
that there is no god except the one that has formed out of delusion
that only lives inside your head.
The only way you've said you could have found out if that's true or not is
by a decoder ring you got in the mail:

"I "found out" I got my decoder ring in the mail one day and used
it when I looked at the bible and it said god was not real" - ***@m.nu

Are you still insisting that's the only way you could "know" God doesn't exist?
Or would you now like to try pretending there are other ways you could have
found out also?

Don Kresch
2014-06-24 22:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
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
That's not our job, bubba. We don't have to do your homework
for you.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Smiler
2014-06-25 00:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
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.
Exactly the same _objective_ evidence that persuaded you of it's existence.
Post by m***@.not.
When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed evidence "should be" they
again are helpless.
As this is *your* supposed god, *you* should know where to find the
objective evidence.

Until you provide evidence, why should we believe you?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

<snip bullshit, word salad, insults and lies>
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
m***@.not.
2014-06-26 20:59:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:17:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <***@jo.king> wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.not.
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.
Exactly the same _objective_ evidence that persuaded you of it's existence.
Post by m***@.not.
When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed evidence "should be" they
again are helpless.
As this is *your* supposed god, *you* should know where to find the
objective evidence.
Until you provide evidence
WHAT type of evidence do atheists think there "should be"? WHERE do atheists
think the evidence they beg for "should be"? WHY do atheists think it "should
be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with whatever particular evidence
they keep whining about?
David Dalton
2014-06-25 02:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
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.
If God exists, perhaps It likes diversity and hence is
not providing evidence for any one viewpoint.
--
David Dalton ***@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"I will stand beside the ocean/and revel in the tide/give myself
up to the rhythm/feel it welling up inside" (Colleen Eccleston)
m***@.not.
2014-06-26 20:59:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:15:33 -0230, David Dalton <***@nfld.com> wrote:
.
Post by David Dalton
Post by m***@.not.
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.
If God exists, perhaps It likes diversity and hence is
not providing evidence for any one viewpoint.
My interpretation is somewhat different....that he does provide evidence for
a number of different viewpoints which is why there are believers in a number of
different religious faiths. Notice that the atheists don't like any evidence
there is and continue to insist there is none in spite of the fact there's
obviously enough to persuade billions of people that God does exist, yet they
have no clue at all what sort of evidence they believe there should be if God
does exist. Notice that not only do they have no clue at all, but they can't
even attempt to pretend to have any clue at all. The challenge to try to explain
what they think they think defeats them absolutely and entirely as they
demonstrate consistently.
k***@baawa.com
2014-06-25 03:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
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. If I could I would upvote you so your stupidity would last more
than a few days online.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Olrik
2014-06-25 03:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
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.
It looks like you're asking us to provide you with an excuse *not* to
believe in «god».
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
James
2014-06-25 14:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.not.
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.
They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs. But atheists are apparently a different breed.

They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs. Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

James
www.jw.org
Bob Casanova
2014-06-25 19:12:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
Post by James
Post by m***@.not.
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.
They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.
Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.
Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.
Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.
Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.
My IronyMeter has started to smoke...

Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?
Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.
...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?

And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
felix_unger
2014-06-26 09:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
Post by James
Post by m***@.not.
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.
They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.
Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.
Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.
Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.
Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.
My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?
Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.
....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.
despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.
--
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”
Bob Casanova
2014-06-26 17:24:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared
Post by felix_unger
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
Post by James
Post by m***@.not.
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.
They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.
Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.
Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.
Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.
Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.
My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?
Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.
....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.
despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
James
2014-06-26 17:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
Post by James
Post by m***@.not.
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.
They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.
Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.
Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.

Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.
Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.
Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.
My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?
Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than that
pathetic theory of macroevolution.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.
...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
god with us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)

I purposely used the small "g" here because that then makes it a true
statement. Their god was Satan. 2 Co 4:4a,

"in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelieving,..."
Post by Bob Casanova
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.
It has been told to you many times. But all right, lets have a look at
it again.

God has left His footprints everywhere. Look at all these machines all
over the place. If you found an android in the woods, you would not
assume that mindless chance made it, would you. You just KNOW that
someone (or some many) created it. Now look at the human body and
compare it to the android. We are made much better stuff than the
android. If it REQUIRES a creator, how much more so would a human.
Also, who or what programmed all this DNA? If you can't see
intelligence behind the DNA, then you are probably forcing your
beliefs to override that logical conclusion.

Or take the common house fly. The aerodynamic maneuvers it makes is
hard to believe. What are the aerodynamic laws like when you get down
to the size of a fly? Who programmed such tricky maneuvers into that
tiny fly brain? Macroevolution has no mind, so it couldn't have done
such sophisticated programming.

Yes, there are millions of different kinds of machines all over this
planet. To believe that they all came from mindless energies, well, I
have a statue of a lady in the New York harbor that I can let go for a
good price:)

James
www.jw.org
m***@.not.
2014-06-26 20:59:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, James <***@windstream.net> wrote:
.
Post by James
Post by m***@.not.
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.
They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs. But atheists are apparently a different breed.
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.
That would explain why they deny the existence of the evidence that has
persuaded billions of people to believe God does exist.
Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths.
They certainly try to hide from anything that threatens the security of
their tiny little mental safety zone. It's cognitive dissonance for sure, and
whether or not Satan does exist their behavior is evidence of Satan's influence
on their feeble minds.
Loading...