XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:42:40 -0600, 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?
Here's a starting line that as yet not one of you has been able to get as
"far" as:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -
Arthur
C. Clarke
What if you ever could get that "far"? IF you ever could, could you possibly
move on or would you somehow be stuck there?
>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.
Challenging you people to try to explain what evidence you think there
should be, where you think it should be and why you think it should be there,
has proven that not one of you has any idea what you think you're trying to
talk
about.
>I could give some
>examples of evidence, but can in no way describe the full set of what
>would be acceptable
If you can describe ANY that would be acceptable instead of stupid and
childlike you would be the first one to do so. I challenge you to try doing it
now.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
