XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:17:37 +0100, Catpain Merca    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >On 24/06/2014 16:05, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence"   
   >>  of The Great Wallaby of Frink's existence? For quite a while, we   
   >> know that. Yet when challenged to try to explain WHAT sort of   
   >> evidence they think "should be" where, they can't even address the   
   >> challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed evidence   
   >> "should be" they again are helpless.   
   >(with laughter)   
   >> When challenged to explain WHY it "should be" to Great Wallaby of   
   >> Frink's benefit to provide us with it AGAIN they have no clue at all   
   >>  what they think they think, or even what they want other people to   
   >> think they think they think.   
   >You think so?   
   >> It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of   
   >> atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,   
   >(not our job)   
   >> nor can they as a group figure out what they think they're trying to   
   >> talk about. Why is it sad? Because it would be interesting to learn   
   >> what they thought they were trying to talk about IF they had any   
   >> idea themselves. We've seen that they don't.   
   >   
   >We've seen you don't   
      
       Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles   
   recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. All medical   
   miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are   
   evidence.   
      
       WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it   
   "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to   
   provide us with it if he exists.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)