XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 10:38:21 -0700, 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.   
      
       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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)