XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:28:51 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:41:10 -0600, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS :   
   >   
   >>On 09/16/2014 11:07 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>> On 17-September-2014 5:39 AM, BruceS wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 09/16/2014 11:05 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:06:20 +1000, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 16-September-2014 12:59 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 15-September-2014 3:38 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:18:11 +1000, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On 14-September-2014 4:06 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:13:48 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by mur@.not.:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:38:03 -0700, Bob Casanova continued   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask for   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence:   
   >>>>>>>>> well duh! it aint called 'religious faith' for no reason. you either   
   >>>>>>>>> accept what evidence there is eg. the biblical record, testimony,   
   >>>>>>>>> etc.,   
   >>>>>>>>> or you don't   
   >>>>>>>> Once more, followups set appropriately, to those groups   
   >>>>>>>> which accept subjective evidence.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> listen you f*n wanker.. I'm REPLYING in a THREAD, that YOU are posting   
   >>>>>>> to in alt.agnosticsm. if you don't like it then just suck it up. YOU   
   >>>>>>> don't get to tell me where I can post or not! but what *IS* your   
   >>>>>>> problem?? you are discussing with mur who is replying in sci.sceptic,   
   >>>>>>> so why single me out to demand I do not reply? I will reply in any   
   >>>>>>> thread as it appears in alt.agnosticism and not make any adjustments   
   >>>>>>> just to suit your pathetic sensitivities! so go screw yerself yer   
   >>>>>>> wanker!! it's not my fault that you can't handle the truth!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> that reply was somewhat emotional so let me explain it all to you   
   >>>>>> factually.. YOU post FROM sci.skeptic in a thread that appears in   
   >>>>>> alt.agnosticism. I post in alt.agnosticism, therefore I see what you   
   >>>>>> post here. by demanding that I do not include the ng sci.skeptic in a   
   >>>>>> reply to anything that you post in alt.agnosticism is effectively   
   >>>>>> denying me a right of reply to your comments, since if I were to reply   
   >>>>>> only to the other groups in the thread, you would not see my reply.   
   >>>>>> this   
   >>>>>> is what you want of course- to have your say but deny me mine. it is   
   >>>>>> cowardly behaviour, and it indicates that you lack confidence in your   
   >>>>>> ability to rebut any arguments I have or might put forward. it is in in   
   >>>>>> fact an endorsement of the veracity of my remarks, since you are   
   >>>>>> 'running scared' from them.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I don't give a diddly-shit if I see your reply or not. *You*   
   >>>>> are posting in sci.skeptic (regardless of who added it),   
   >>>>> sci.skeptic is where I read it, and *I* did not start the   
   >>>>> thread. If you wish to have your interpretation of the   
   >>>>> meaning of "evidence" be restricted to other than objective,   
   >>>>> simply *don't post in a sci newsgroup*. If you continue to   
   >>>>> post in sci.skeptic, I will continue to ask for evidence   
   >>>>> acceptable to science. It's just as simple as that. And if   
   >>>>> you remove sci.skeptic from your reply (if any) to this post   
   >>>>> it will be of no importance to me. HANL.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Now I'm a bit curious whether the people in alt.agnosticism really   
   >>>> don't care about evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> we care a hell of a lot more about it than atheists do becuase we accept   
   >>> what evidence exists and deal with it, unlike your mob you want to limit   
   >>> what may be considered evidence to suit yourselves   
   >>   
   >>In your system, everything is "evidence", which makes the term useless   
   >>in terms of any real effort to find truth.  We have evidence for dragons   
   >>and elves, according to your definition.   
   >   
   >Correct. When opinions and written testimony are considered   
   >evidence,   
      
       Like those of such people as Darwin and Hawking.   
      
   >*nothing* can be excluded other than by claiming   
   >"Well, I don't believe that, I believe *this*". Duelling   
   >beliefs, as it were.   
      
       Atheists have less evidence that there is no God associated with Earth than   
   there's evidence that there is a God associated with Earth. That's another one   
   of the starting lines you people can't get as "far" as.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)