XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 05-November-2014 12:57 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:39 +0100, the following appeared in   
   >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"   
   >> :   
   >>   
   >>> "Bob Casanova"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >>> news:oprc5a1ito4taguc3j971q5e913bi0ic3l@4ax.com...   
   >>>> 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?   
   >>> Don't forget the 'many documented miracles'.   
   >> That, too.   
   >   
   >what are miracles evidence of it not that a miraculous event has occurred?   
      
   An event may have occurred and someone alleged that it was miraculous.   
   No evidence supports the supposition.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)