XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:17:24 +0100, Catpain Merca    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >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.   
      
       Then what do you think you're trying to talk about?   
      
   >>>> 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?   
      
       If God exists I've no reason to doubt he performs "miracles" to demonstrate   
   his existence to some people. If he doesn't exist then all reported miracles   
   are   
   wrong. Even if he does exist and performs miracles, I've no doubt some of the   
   reports of miracles are incorrect. I also have no doubt that some people lie   
   deliberately, and others got it wrong. I can consider the things that you can,   
   but I can go on and consider things that you can't.   
      
   >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.   
      
       In what ways do you think they should be tested, and which of those tests   
   do   
   you think have not been done? Why not?   
      
       What of the tests that have been done? What do you think the results should   
   be if God does exist, and why?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >You have nothing of significance, that's what my post was about, btw.   
      
       You still haven't said 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. So you have nothing of   
   significance either. I'm testing you atheists. So far every one of you has   
   failed with a score of zero as individuals, and also as a group. But on the   
   plus   
   side for you atheists the test is still going on, and you are strongly   
   encouraged to take it again and again and again.... as often as you can to try   
   to finally get a score above zero. Remember that this test is only a test of   
   how   
   much of a clue any of you have of what you think YOU are trying to talk about.   
   So TRY to provide some evidence that you have some clue what YOU are trying to   
   talk about. TRY!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)