XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 07-November-2014 5:17 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   > On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 22:02:32 +0100, the following appeared in   
   > sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"   
   > :   
   >   
   >> "Bob Casanova"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >> news:19ok5a1q93hi0ngk0uiem8fh0iuhktk3b4@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:50:29 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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?   
   >>> If there's no physical, objective evidence they occurred,   
   >>> they're evidence that someone thinks they occurred. As I   
   >>> noted elsethread, we have different definitions for   
   >>> "evidence", and mine doesn't include unsupported testimony.   
   >> Neither does mine. This one, on the other hand, is as close to actual proof   
   >> as one can get (most have probably seen it before):   
   >> http://tinyurl.com/jw5obm9   
   > Nope. And I hope to never see it again.   
      
   LOL! I have to agree   
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
   Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com   
   http://pamelageller.com/   
   “The right to free speech includes the right to offend"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)