XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   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!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)