XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:15:48 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 04-November-2014 11:56 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 4/11/2014 11:35 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:32:20 +1100, Sylvia Else   
   >>>    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>> .   
   >>>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>> Why don't you do it, so we can see if you're aware of at least that   
   >>> much?   
   >>   
   >> The stuff I'm aware of pretty much matches the categories given by   
   >> Bob, and isn't real evidence.   
   >   
   >define 'real' evidence   
      
       They prove consistently that even as they demand it, they don't have the   
   slightest clue what it is they think they're demanding. It seems that no people   
   capable of participating in these news groups should be so stupid, but then it   
   also seems none of them should be stupid enough to lie that there's no   
   evidence.   
   One thing that they are proving without question, imo, is that they are   
   EXTREMELY comfortable with lying blatantly in public when the people they're   
   lying to are aware, and tell them they're aware, that they are lying.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)