XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: catpainmerca@gmail.com   
      
   On 26/06/2014 21:59, mur@.not. wrote:   
   > 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.   
   Material life is not evidence for supernatural agencies or entities.   
      
   > All accepted miracles are evidence.   
   Accepted by whom?  Invariably when pressed for a miracle which can be   
   subjected to scrutiny, all that is offered is poor evidence.  If the   
   situation were otherwise, we would see significant parts of the   
   scientific community dedicated to investigation of such phenomena.   
   In other words very fucking poor evidence, negligible in fact.   
      
   > All miracles> recorded in the Bible are evidence.   
   Very fucking poor evidence.   
      
   > All saints are evidence.   
   Very fucking poor evidence.   
      
   > All medical miracles are evidence.   
   Very fucking poor evidence.   
      
   > All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.   
   Evidence only of wishful thinking and gullibility.   
      
   >   
   >      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.   
   I neither know nor care.  I've already said he's a figment of your   
   imagination.  Purport some testable qualities for your figment and let   
   them be tested.   
      
   Catpain Merca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)