XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:41:18 +0100, Catpain Merca    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >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.   
      
       Try to get this far and then see if you can move on from there:   
      
   "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -   
   Arthur   
   C. Clarke   
      
   >> 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.   
      
       Things which occur and appear to be miracles are poor evidence that they   
   occur?   
      
   >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.   
      
       There's no way you could know that.   
      
   >> All saints are evidence.   
   >Very fucking poor evidence.   
      
       There's no way you could know that either.   
      
   >> All medical miracles are evidence.   
   >Very fucking poor evidence.   
      
       There's SURE no way you could know that.   
      
   >> All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.   
   >Evidence only of wishful thinking and gullibility.   
      
       I must wonder if you're stupid enough to believe that, or if you're really   
   not that stupid.   
      
   >>      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.   
      
       Then you have nothing at all. That's what this thread is about, btw.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)