XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:cc3bf0FqdfvU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > 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"   
   > > :   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > >>> 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   
      
   According to you it's evidence of God's existence if somebody believes it   
   is.   
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)