XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:40:56 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >In article , mur wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:09:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   >> wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >> >That's a lie. We tell you EXACTLY what the evidence should be.   
   >>   
   >>     That's a lie. Try doing it now. EXACTLY what do you like to think it   
   >>     should   
   >> be.   
   >   
   >I'm going to tell you once more time (one last time). I don't give a   
   >shit what you present as evidence; if it isn't objective and verifiable,   
   >it is not evidence.   
   >   
   >Now read that over and over until you understand what I said.   
      
       I know what you said, but also know that you don't have any idea how you   
   think it should be able to be verified, and you have absolutely no reason to   
   believe verifiable evidence should be available if God exists. We ALL have   
   reason to believe it should NOT be avaialable, but no one has reason to think   
   it   
   should be. You can't even pretend you do have reason to believe it should be. I   
   challenge you to try. You lose.   
      
   >> >Every single time.   
   >>   
   >>     That's a HORRIBLY blatant lie, and one that's so stupid it's almost hard   
   >>     to   
   >> believe even you would tell it.   
   >>   
   >> >It must be objective and verifiable by anyone who chooses   
   >> >to verify it.   
   >>   
   >>     You've made that general maundering   
   >   
   >What "general maundering"?   
      
       "It must be objective and verifiable by anyone who chooses to verify it."   
      
   >Are you delusional? When did I maunder?   
   >   
   >I gave you a highly specific requirement to judge whether something is   
   >evidence.   
      
       You don't have any idea at all what you think you're trying to talk about   
   and can't even pretend that you do. The challenge to try explaining what you   
   think you're imagining defeats you EVERY TIME, to the extent that you can't   
   even   
   attempt to meet it.   
      
   >It would be impossible to be any more specific than that.   
      
       You haven't been specific at all and can't be even when challenged to try.   
      
   >> in the past, but you have no idea HOW   
   >> you think it should be able to be verified, EXACTLY WHAT you think it should   
   >> be,   
   >> WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be to God's benefit to   
   >> provide it, or WHEN you think he should make it or should have made it   
   >> available. All that on top of the fact that he may very well have done what   
   >> you   
   >> demand through Jesus well over a thousand years ago, of course.   
   >   
   >   
   >I don't give a shit what it is   
      
       You have no clue at all about this topic, including what you think you're   
   imagining there should be, much less why you think it should be available.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)