XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: catpainmerca@gmail.com   
      
   On 02/07/2014 16:27, mur@.not. wrote:   
   > 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   
   God the mechanic is not a refutation of my assertion.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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?   
   Things which are recounted from persons of unknowable veracity and   
   ability are poor evidence.  Which is more likely, that the physical laws   
   of the universe were temporarily suspended or that some witnesses either   
   got it wrong or lied?  Miracles require the strongest of evidence.  Feel   
   free to supply such evidence now to the scientific community.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   If there is strong evidence it's startling that the scientific community   
   is not significantly pursuing it.  Provide strong evidence to the   
   scientific community and we can go from there.   
      
   >   
   >>> All saints are evidence.   
   >> Very fucking poor evidence.   
   >   
   >      There's no way you could know that either.   
   If there is strong evidence it's startling that the scientific community   
   is not significantly pursuing it.  Provide strong evidence to the   
   scientific community and we can go from there.   
      
   >   
   >>> All medical miracles are evidence.   
   >> Very fucking poor evidence.   
   >   
   >      There's SURE no way you could know that.   
   If there is strong evidence it's startling that the scientific community   
   is not significantly pursuing it.  Provide strong evidence to the   
   scientific community and we can go from there.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   I'm not gullible enough to believe without evidence that prayers are   
   answered.  If there is strong evidence that prayer is effective it's   
   startling that the scientific community is not significantly pursuing   
   it.  Provide strong evidence to the scientific community and we can go   
   from there.   
      
   >   
   >>>       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.   
   >   
   Disingenuous cretin that you are, here's the bit you snipped.  Find that   
   harder to deal with did you?   
      
   I've already said he's a figment of your imagination.  Purport some   
   testable qualities for your figment and let them be tested.   
      
      
   You have nothing of significance, that's what my post was about, btw.   
      
   Catpain Merca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)