XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: bruces42@hotmail.com   
      
   On 09/19/2014 02:42 PM, BruceS wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)