XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:35:31 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:53:11 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >.   
   >>On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else   
   >>:   
   >>   
   >>>On 1/11/2014 7:05 AM, The.W@tcher wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's   
   existence,   
   >>>> when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented with   
   evidence   
   >>>> of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is   
   evidence,   
   >>   
   >>>Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been presented?   
   >>   
   >>Any bets on whether it consists of a combination of   
   >>religious texts, number of believers and arguments from   
   >>incredulity?   
   >   
   >    What do you think there should be? Why can't you people give respectable   
   >examples of what type(s) of evidence you think there should be in addition to   
   >the evidence you deny? Why can't you say where it should be? Why can't you   
   >explain why it should be available to humans? Why can't you say why you can't   
   >say, even after it has been explained for you? The answer is that you're   
   ashamed   
   >of your failings as you should be, and you're ashamed of your shame, as again   
   >you should be. ALL OF YOU!   
      
   You never offered any evidence at all. Don't make excuses for your   
   dishonesty. Just because you allege that evidence exists, you have made   
   it clear that you know there is no such evidence and that you are being   
   dishonest in your attempt to deflect us from noting your dishonest   
   failure.   
      
   You preach a joke of a religion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)