XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:59:20 +1000, 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!   
      
       Yes but it's good to keep challenging them on it even so. They imagine   
   there   
   "should be" something, but they can't imagine what it might be.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)