XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:ccq1s3Fj47oU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > On 16-November-2014 12:21 AM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   > > "felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen   
   > > news:ccns2oF1jdgU1@mid.individual.net...   
      
   (snip)   
      
   For a while I thought fuck it, this is getting tiresome, and he'll call a   
   blob 'evidence of alien UFO's' no matter what. 'A miracle is evidence of God   
   even if we know that the miracle never happened.'   
      
   But then I got pissed off again. That little piece of shite had actually   
   said this:   
      
   > >> >> ... like the fact that you lie ...   
      
   You said that it is a fact that I'm a liar, but you refused to back it up.   
   If it's "a fact" then you can prove it, right, but you didn't even try. You   
   know what that makes you?   
      
   You also said this about me:   
      
   > >> >> make contradictory remarks about what you yourself believe ...   
      
   Again, you failed to back it up, which would be the easiest thing in the   
   world. Quote me, and make me look bad. But you didn't and I can only   
   interpret that one way:   
      
   You're the liar, and you know you're lying. You lied, because I had hammered   
   you into a corner where you had to accept drawings of Dog Heads, grainy   
   images of thrown hubcaps and old unsubstantiated tales of miraculous healing   
   of the blind, as bona fide evidence. Why you let it happen I don't know, and   
   I gave you every chance in the World to back out, but you insisted, again   
   and again, on making yourself look like a complete dick.   
      
   You went further and threw another piece against the wall that didn't stick:   
      
   > >> you don't address what I actually say.   
      
   Really! My original reaction follows below.   
      
      
   > > This is beyond silly. I do nothing but address your very words, follow   
   > > and   
   > > read your links, quote from them and ask you to comment, draw parallels,   
   > > come up with allegories, put your arguments into perspective, describe   
   > > possible outcomes and on and on. I sink my teath into your arguments and   
   > > don't let go until you respond. You know it's what I do. You say that   
   > > completely unsubstantiated tales from 1858 of healed hands is evidence   
   > > of   
   > > miracles and therefor evidence of the existence of God. I've addressed   
   > > that   
   > > countless times, but you refuse to go into details. 'I argue in   
   > > principles   
   > > only', you say. I've put every principle you promote under the   
   > > microscope   
   > > and made you look at it. I can't help it if it makes you squirm. 'Tales   
   > > of   
   > > miracles are evidence of God even if the miracles never really   
   > > happened'.   
   > > Hell, I'm starting to get a little pale around the gills myself.   
      
   And you had no reply, of course. I could go into further details about all   
   the questions and replies that you have ignored. But knowing you, as the   
   intellectual lazy coward you are, I realize that it'll yield nothing.   
      
      
   > I do appreciate your input, ...   
      
   And a slimy hypocrite as well.   
      
   Damn, I'm feeling a whole lot better now. Have a really shitty weekend!   
      
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)