Holding their feet to the fire ...

[phank]

But there are those who think that when they make the claim that the very fact that they said it is substantiation. What's more when they repeat the assertion they think they have provided even more corroborating evidence.

Such people seriously don't understand what the concept of supplying supporting evidence means or else are so full of themselves -- so chock full of hubris -- that they think that the very fact that they said it ought to settle it.

But you should understand that none of the gods humans have ever invented would exist unless enough people SAID they exist enough times. Most of those gods have died for lack of repetition!

[Method]

See post # 191 --- apply to yourself, perhaps a double dose.

Jorge

Support your claims. You claimed that evolution was being used as a justification for abortion. Are AiG's claims so indefensible that even you can't defend them?

[Jorge]

Any person with an ounce of humility recognizes that when they claim something is true, they should supply supporting evidence. People with an ounce of humility or more recognize the world doesn't revolve around them and that every person should, for their own safety and well-being, question assertions made by others without justification. Persons of good will do not demand others jeopardize themselves on the word of another without justification. Your demand that others go and produce the evidence that proves your assertions wrong coupled with you refusal to provide supporting evidence when requested is the mark of the charlatan and the deceiver. People with nothing to hide, who are confident of their positions, and who have good will and charity towards others do not groan at the labor of helping others find the truth.

Jim

Yeah, right --- anyone (including O-Mudd) with a microgram of integrity would acknowledge when a person (namely, me) has supplied more-than-enough evidence on countless occasions. This evidence gets ignored/dismissed and then, after some time, "evidence" is demanded as if none had ever been supplied before.

Then, in what has to be dizzying heights of hutzpah, I am expected to take you people seriously.

Of course, the reason why O-Mudd would not mention such things is because he himself is one of the perpetrators referred to above. There's something about "taking the 5th so as to not self-incriminate" and so, no, do not expect an admission of any kind here from O-Mudd.

Did you lose your way from 'under the rock', O-Mudd? Back ... crawl back ... mush!!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Support your claims. You claimed that evolution was being used as a justification for abortion. Are AiG's claims so indefensible that even you can't defend them?

Jorge

[jordanriver]

Yeah, right --- anyone (including O-Mudd) with a microgram of integrity would acknowledge when a person (namely, me) has supplied more-than-enough evidence on countless occasions. This evidence gets ignored/dismissed and then, after some time, "evidence" is demanded as if none had ever been supplied before.

Then, in what has to be dizzying heights of hutzpah, I am expected to take you people seriously.

Of course, the reason why O-Mudd would not mention such things is because he himself is one of the perpetrators referred to above. There's something about "taking the 5th so as to not self-incriminate" and so, no, do not expect an admission of any kind here from O-Mudd.

Did you lose your way from 'under the rock', O-Mudd? Back ... crawl back ... mush!!!

Jorge

dunno about you J, but most of my "evidence" disappeared with the demise of the old TWEB and a computer crash. (call me lois lerner)

...lost the convenience of citing my own posts

[Method]

Jorge

As before, Jorge's own claims are so indefensible that even he can't be asked to defend them.

[rwatts]

... would acknowledge when a person (namely, me) has supplied more-than-enough evidence on countless occasions.

Is this an example of Jorge providing evidence on one of those many occasions?

(It looks to me like Jorge ranting then running - which he does on many occasions).

[Roy]

Yeah, right --- anyone (including O-Mudd) with a microgram of integrity would acknowledge when a person (namely, me) has supplied more-than-enough evidence on countless occasions. This evidence gets ignored/dismissed and then, after some time, "evidence" is demanded as if none had ever been supplied before.

So what? If the evidence is indeed "beyond overwhelming", with "tons and tons of support dating back decades", it should be trivial to provide it again. Especially since only one example is needed. It should take less time to find than it takes to rant about being asked for it. Even if it was never actually provided in the first place.

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, right --- anyone (including O-Mudd) with a microgram of integrity would acknowledge when a person (namely, me) has supplied more-than-enough evidence on countless occasions. This evidence gets ignored/dismissed and then, after some time, "evidence" is demanded as if none had ever been supplied before.

Then, in what has to be dizzying heights of hutzpah, I am expected to take you people seriously.

Of course, the reason why O-Mudd would not mention such things is because he himself is one of the perpetrators referred to above. There's something about "taking the 5th so as to not self-incriminate" and so, no, do not expect an admission of any kind here from O-Mudd.

Did you lose your way from 'under the rock', O-Mudd? Back ... crawl back ... mush!!!

Jorge

Does not even come close to providing you an excuse Jorge. You have a moral obligation to support your claims each time you make them. If nothing else consider the scriptures themselves: 1 Peter 3:15

New International Version
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

New Living Translation
Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.

English Standard Version
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

New American Standard Bible
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

King James Bible
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:



You violate this encouragement in nearly every post you create.


Jim

[jordanriver]

Does not even come close to providing you an excuse Jorge. You have a moral obligation to support your claims each time you make them. If nothing else consider the scriptures themselves: 1 Peter 3:15

New International Version
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

New Living Translation
Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.

English Standard Version
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

New American Standard Bible
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

King James Bible
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:



You violate this encouragement in nearly every post you create.


Jim

Hello Jim.
one of the things that drives skeptics crazy, is how we Christians can use the Bible to just about almost make it support any thing we want to do.

If I want to answer (usually in my case it probably means if I actually have the answer for a change ) I might apply:
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

If I don't want an answer (usually in my case it might be because I don't know, but occasionally it occurs to me someone is ignoring my answers and keep asking the same thing over and over to play out the clock or waste my time -- who knows)
...but I can apply the verse next to Proverbs 26:5

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

[rogue06]

dunno about you J, but most of my "evidence" disappeared with the demise of the old TWEB and a computer crash. (call me lois lerner)

...lost the convenience of citing my own posts

Big Time.

[rwatts]

But why should empathy override practical considerations?

What is unreasonable about identifying with the suffering of fellow humans?

Your life might be so free of suffering and feeling, and so driven by logic and rationality seer, that you have no emotional attachment to others. But for most atheists, Christians, theists of other faiths, evolutionists, physicists, Hindus, Muslims, etc, I suspect it's otherwise.

Why is that rational?

See above. Besides, why does it have to be rational? For example, lot's of things I do are not entirely rational. I do them simply out of preference, knowing all the while that they could be done another way, a more efficient way. I just like it the way I do it.

[rwatts]

You violate this encouragement in nearly every post you create.


Jim

I suspect that verse has been snipped from Jorge's Bible, as has Matt 7:20 likely been removed.

I reckon Jorge's bible would look as if the censor has been though it.

[rwatts]

Hello Jim.
one of the things that drives skeptics crazy, is how we Christians can use the Bible to just about almost make it support any thing we want to do.

If I want to answer (usually in my case it probably means if I actually have the answer for a change ) I might apply:
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

If I don't want an answer (usually in my case it might be because I don't know, but occasionally it occurs to me someone is ignoring my answers and keep asking the same thing over and over to play out the clock or waste my time -- who knows)
...but I can apply the verse next to Proverbs 26:5

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

I'd say it drives believers crazy as well, because different verses are often used in finger pointing exercises between believers to define who really is the true Christian and who is the heretic.

[Roy]

You violate this encouragement in nearly every post you create.

Ah, but is anyone asking Jorge about his "Christian hope"?

Roy