XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: bruces42@hotmail.com   
      
   On 09/18/2014 06:59 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   > On 19-September-2014 7:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:39:47 -0600, 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.  I would think evidence would be one of their more   
   >>> serious points of interest.   
   >>      I'm very interested in what you people think you think you're   
   >> trying to talk   
   >> about when you demand evidence, and when I began challenging you   
   >> people about it   
   >> expected to get at least some sort of attempt to explain what some of   
   >> you think   
   >> it should be. However, every one of you has shown consistently that   
   >> NONE OF YOU   
   >> have the slightest clue what you think you're trying to talk about   
   >> when you   
   >> demand evidence. Here's a chance for you to finally be the first to try   
   >> pretending you have some idea what you think it should be:   
   >>   
   >> Try to explain 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.   
   >   
   > they won't / don't accept what evidence exists, but demand evidence they   
   > can't explain. duh!   
      
   How about *any* objective evidence that supports the existence of   
   magical creatures?  If someone presents a claim, that person needs to   
   present the evidence for that claim.  Requiring everyone else to tell   
   you what the evidence should be is just silly.  I could give some   
   examples of evidence, but can in no way describe the full set of what   
   would be acceptable, except to say that it needs to be actual objective   
   evidence in support of your particular magical system, and not readily   
   explainable through rational means.  For instance, if you could get your   
   genie/god/fairy/saint/vampire/etc to do something a normal human cannot   
   do, in any sort of controlled environment, that would be evidence that   
   it exists.  How about getting it to cause rain to fall in a well-defined   
   (and previously determined) time and place, and not outside that time   
   and place?  Or you could get it to levitate a piece of wood in a   
   fully-enclosed clear container and move it in a controlled manner.  Or   
   you could get it to turn a person into another kind of animal, and back   
   again, while that person is being observed by neutral persons.  The list   
   is very long on what would constitute "evidence", especially if the   
   magical creature is claimed to be "all powerful" or even just "very   
   powerful".  To support a magical creature that's said to be able to do   
   some specific magical trick, the list would be much shorter.  None of   
   this means that having some unreliable source claim such behaviors had   
   already been observed would constitute evidence, any more than having a   
   raving lunatic in the park claim to see trees turn into butterflies   
   counts as evidence that this happened.   
      
   As for why any particular magical creature would benefit from presenting   
   evidence, that's completely beside the point.  If the creature exists,   
   and sees no benefit to presenting evidence of its existence, and   
   therefore presents no evidence, that simply means there's no evidence.   
   The same applies for the FSM as it does for "God" (probably meaning Yahweh).   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)