XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   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?   
      
       You're aware that all apparent miracles are evidence of God yet some of   
   them   
   you know are fakes. You also consider that some of them may be actual miracles.   
   These people can't get as "far" as any of that, much less go on to consider   
   which ones might be real and which ones might be fakes. They are like true   
   morons when it comes to any aspect of the possibility of a God being associated   
   with Earth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)