XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:02:56 +0200, Chicken wrote:   
   .   
   >"Jeanne Douglas"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >news:hlwdjsd2-5B65BC.21171929042015@news.giganews.com...   
   >>   
   >> In article <5mr2kahhusv11k344q7vcmeqlrqri3iml0@4ax.com>, mur wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 10:06:43 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield"    
   >> > wrote:   
   >> > .   
   >> > >"felix_unger"  wrote in message   
   >> > >news:cpgvv7Fj4dkU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >> > >   
   >> > >> that's only talking about the nature of the evidence. evidence does   
   >> > >> NOT   
   >> > >> have to be objective and verifiable to be evidence.   
   >> > >   
   >> > >If it is not objective, and not verifiable, then it's an opinion.   
   >> >   
   >> >     You people have no clue what sort of evidence   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Stop telling that lie every time ...   
   >   
   >Ever heard of Sisyphus? Of course you have, I'm not trying to be a dick, but   
   >this is what you get when trying to argue with mur. He repeats the same two   
   >or three non-sensical argument over and over and over. 'Atheist are ashamed,   
   >reports of miracles are evidence of God, you cannot realistically consider a   
   >God being associated with Earth'. You know the drill.   
      
       I point out the same significant aspects over and over because they don't   
   change or go away. You may honestly be too stupid to comprehend that, but it's   
   true none the less and probably will remain true for all of our lives just as   
   it   
   has been true for all of our lives so far.   
      
   >I keep mentioning it to you, because I think it's a damned shame that you   
   >continue wasting your time on that particular idiot. He'll never even   
   >realize that he has been shown to be wrong, let alone admit it.   
      
       No one can produce examples of me being shown, even when challenged   
   directly   
   to do so. For example I challenge you or anyone reading this to do so NOW.   
      
   >> ...we tell you EXACTLY what kind of   
   >> evidence we require.   
   >   
   >He cannot hear you.   
      
       In contrast to that blatant lie I have responded to the blatant lie you're   
   referring to by pointing out that it's a blatant lie.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)