Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Sonofason]

"The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming."
(Psalm 37:12-13)

"But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you-- when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you." (Proverb;1:24-27)

There's a time to laugh and a time to cry. (Ecclesiastes 3:4)

As I say, this is not a 'Christian' idea. It seems to strike directly against the more frequent message of Jesus, about compassion, love, honoring the prodigal son, the Beatitudes, leaving the ninety and nine to find the lost sheep. . . .

I realize one can cherry pick verses, even in the New Testament, that can show a different aspect of His message, but isn't the central theme of Jesus more like
I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.

Luke 15:7

I believe it hurts your argument when you take verses out of context. Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

Luke 15 verse 1-2
"Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Is it your impression that these Pharisees are in need of salvation? Clearly, in their own eyes, they are not in need of anything that Jesus had to offer. Shall they be saved? Lol, I think not. They don't need Jesus.

So who are the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance"? I suggest they are people who believe they don't need Jesus.

Rather than undermine my argument, your selection of Luke 15:1-2 enhances it. This is yet another example of Jesus seeking out the lost sheep, as he 'receives and dines with sinners.' I think it both sad and poor scriptural interpretation to look for the evil in the Pharisees instead of seeing the joy of salvation and assurance that Jesus reaches out to sinners. I see Christianity as a shield against darkness and fear, rather than as a sword wielded to destroy. But I confess that this latter approach is the one that gets the most negative attention and drives many away from the Faith.

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Yes even the foetus in the womb.

Praise god.

Haven't you heard? A foetus is not a person.

Haven't you read? That passage never mentions persons it just says all.

So then, are we suggesting that all molecules and globs of molecules are sinners?

Please be precise, so I can understand your claim.

[10CC]

"The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming."
(Psalm 37:12-13)

"But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you-- when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you." (Proverb;1:24-27)

There's a time to laugh and a time to cry. (Ecclesiastes 3:4)

As I say, this is not a 'Christian' idea. It seems to strike directly against the more frequent message of Jesus, about compassion, love, honoring the prodigal son, the Beatitudes, leaving the ninety and nine to find the lost sheep. . . .

I realize one can cherry pick verses, even in the New Testament, that can show a different aspect of His message, but isn't the central theme of Jesus more like
I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.

Luke 15:7

I believe it hurts your argument when you take verses out of context. Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

Luke 15 verse 1-2
"Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Is it your impression that these Pharisees are in need of salvation? Clearly, in their own eyes, they are not in need of anything that Jesus had to offer. Shall they be saved? Lol, I think not. They don't need Jesus.

So who are the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance"? I suggest they are people who believe they don't need Jesus.

Rather than undermine my argument, your selection of Luke 15:1-2 enhances it. This is yet another example of Jesus seeking out the lost sheep, as he 'receives and dines with sinners.' I think it both sad and poor scriptural interpretation to look for the evil in the Pharisees instead of seeing the joy of salvation and assurance that Jesus reaches out to sinners. I see Christianity as a shield against darkness and fear, rather than as a sword wielded to destroy. But I confess that this latter approach is the one that gets the most negative attention and drives many away from the Faith.

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Yes even the foetus in the womb.

Praise god.

Haven't you heard? A foetus is not a person.

Haven't you read? That passage never mentions persons it just says all.

So then, are we suggesting that all molecules and globs of molecules are sinners?

Please be precise, so I can understand your claim.

Well I'm not suggesting anything. That would be your god, his book and you.

[Sonofason]

"The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming."
(Psalm 37:12-13)

"But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you-- when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you." (Proverb;1:24-27)

There's a time to laugh and a time to cry. (Ecclesiastes 3:4)

As I say, this is not a 'Christian' idea. It seems to strike directly against the more frequent message of Jesus, about compassion, love, honoring the prodigal son, the Beatitudes, leaving the ninety and nine to find the lost sheep. . . .

I realize one can cherry pick verses, even in the New Testament, that can show a different aspect of His message, but isn't the central theme of Jesus more like
I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.

Luke 15:7

I believe it hurts your argument when you take verses out of context. Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

Luke 15 verse 1-2
"Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Is it your impression that these Pharisees are in need of salvation? Clearly, in their own eyes, they are not in need of anything that Jesus had to offer. Shall they be saved? Lol, I think not. They don't need Jesus.

So who are the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance"? I suggest they are people who believe they don't need Jesus.

Rather than undermine my argument, your selection of Luke 15:1-2 enhances it. This is yet another example of Jesus seeking out the lost sheep, as he 'receives and dines with sinners.' I think it both sad and poor scriptural interpretation to look for the evil in the Pharisees instead of seeing the joy of salvation and assurance that Jesus reaches out to sinners. I see Christianity as a shield against darkness and fear, rather than as a sword wielded to destroy. But I confess that this latter approach is the one that gets the most negative attention and drives many away from the Faith.

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Yes even the foetus in the womb.

Praise god.

Haven't you heard? A foetus is not a person.

Haven't you read? That passage never mentions persons it just says all.

So then, are we suggesting that all molecules and globs of molecules are sinners?

Please be precise, so I can understand your claim.

Well I'm not suggesting anything that would be your god, his book and you.

Hmmm, that's what I thought. I guess we can leave it at that.

[JohnA]

As I say, this is not a 'Christian' idea. It seems to strike directly against the more frequent message of Jesus, about compassion, love, honoring the prodigal son, the Beatitudes, leaving the ninety and nine to find the lost sheep. . . .

I realize one can cherry pick verses, even in the New Testament, that can show a different aspect of His message, but isn't the central theme of Jesus more like
I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.

Luke 15:7

I believe it hurts your argument when you take verses out of context. Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

Luke 15 verse 1-2
"Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Is it your impression that these Pharisees are in need of salvation? Clearly, in their own eyes, they are not in need of anything that Jesus had to offer. Shall they be saved? Lol, I think not. They don't need Jesus.

So who are the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance"? I suggest they are people who believe they don't need Jesus.

Rather than undermine my argument, your selection of Luke 15:1-2 enhances it. This is yet another example of Jesus seeking out the lost sheep, as he 'receives and dines with sinners.' I think it both sad and poor scriptural interpretation to look for the evil in the Pharisees instead of seeing the joy of salvation and assurance that Jesus reaches out to sinners. I see Christianity as a shield against darkness and fear, rather than as a sword wielded to destroy. But I confess that this latter approach is the one that gets the most negative attention and drives many away from the Faith.

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Yes even the foetus in the womb.

Praise god.

Haven't you heard? A foetus is not a person.

Haven't you read? That passage never mentions persons it just says all.

So then, are we suggesting that all molecules and globs of molecules are sinners?

Please be precise, so I can understand your claim.

Well I'm not suggesting anything that would be your god, his book and you.

Hmmm, that's what I thought. I guess we can leave it at that.

So are you suggesting anything? State your claims if you do. Or admit of you have no claims regarding your god.

At least your religion does not promote:
Genitalia mutilation - how on earth can anyone sane person approve of this.
War - Making claims for land based on claims by a being that is not a being with the 1st Jew Avraham that lived some 175 years. ..
Racism - refusal to accept non Jews even when their wife and son is a Jew. Thinking one race is above others by ethical blood when in fact ALL living things are related.
Dishonestly - saying you answered when you did not. Comparing religion to taste of chocolate or ice scream.
Fideism - redefining g-d as undefined when the Torah does define the deity as the exact opposite - both claims based on zero evidence (faith), and weak attempt to avoid the burden of proof. Not to mention defining the Jewish ethnic race into existence via no evidence - we are all the same, why discriminate.

How ridiculous.

[no evidence no belief]

"The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming."
(Psalm 37:12-13)

"But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you-- when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you." (Proverb;1:24-27)

There's a time to laugh and a time to cry. (Ecclesiastes 3:4)

As I say, this is not a 'Christian' idea. It seems to strike directly against the more frequent message of Jesus, about compassion, love, honoring the prodigal son, the Beatitudes, leaving the ninety and nine to find the lost sheep. . . .

I realize one can cherry pick verses, even in the New Testament, that can show a different aspect of His message, but isn't the central theme of Jesus more like
I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.

Luke 15:7

I believe it hurts your argument when you take verses out of context. Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

Luke 15 verse 1-2
"Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Is it your impression that these Pharisees are in need of salvation? Clearly, in their own eyes, they are not in need of anything that Jesus had to offer. Shall they be saved? Lol, I think not. They don't need Jesus.

So who are the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance"? I suggest they are people who believe they don't need Jesus.

Rather than undermine my argument, your selection of Luke 15:1-2 enhances it. This is yet another example of Jesus seeking out the lost sheep, as he 'receives and dines with sinners.' I think it both sad and poor scriptural interpretation to look for the evil in the Pharisees instead of seeing the joy of salvation and assurance that Jesus reaches out to sinners. I see Christianity as a shield against darkness and fear, rather than as a sword wielded to destroy. But I confess that this latter approach is the one that gets the most negative attention and drives many away from the Faith.

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Excuse me guys, could you save your Dungeons & Dragons lore for the Comicon convention?

This is a thread about evidence. I don't need to hear about how Barbarians have more healthpoints, Dwarves have more resistance to magic or Elves have more Agility.

I don't need to hear how the powerful "Jesus Power Up" that allows adventurers into the "Magical Kingdom of Heaven" is only available by casting a "Repentance Spell".

I don't care about lore, theology or any other discussion of fiction.

We are here to talk evidence. I had taken the liberty to take a quick tangent to ask you to apologize for saying that you laugh at fellow human beings being tortured. Weather you choose to apologize or not is your prerogative, but certainly this gives you no excuse to set off on a huge tangent to discuss the details and inner workings of the fairy tales you believe in.

[Danmark]

Excuse me guys, could you save your Dungeons & Dragons lore for the Comicon convention?

This is a thread about evidence. I don't need to hear about how Barbarians have more healthpoints, Dwarves have more resistance to magic or Elves have more Agility.

I don't need to hear how the powerful "Jesus Power Up" that allows adventurers into the "Magical Kingdom of Heaven" is only available by casting a "Repentance Spell".

I don't care about lore, theology or any other discussion of fiction.

We are here to talk evidence. I had taken the liberty to take a quick tangent to ask you to apologize for saying that you laugh at fellow human beings being tortured. Weather you choose to apologize or not is your prerogative, but certainly this gives you no excuse to set off on a huge tangent to discuss the details and inner workings of the fairy tales you believe in.

Good point. I started a separate subtopic on the 'love vs. righteousness' issue here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24146
... so that discussion does not need to continue on this EVIDENCE thread.

[steps]

[Replying to post 2149 by no evidence no belief]

The believers do not have to prove the stabilizer. the confirmed fact , the existence of God

[36. Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief.37. Or are with them the treasures of your Lord? Or are they the tyrants with the authority to do as they like? ]



[53. We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things? ]

[cnorman18]

At least your religion does not promote:
Genitalia mutilation - how on earth can anyone sane person approve of this.
War - Making claims for land based on claims by a being that is not a being with the 1st Jew Avraham that lived some 175 years. ..
Racism - refusal to accept non Jews even when their wife and son is a Jew. Thinking one race is above others by ethical blood when in fact ALL living things are related.
Dishonestly - saying you answered when you did not. Comparing religion to taste of chocolate or ice scream.
Fideism - redefining g-d as undefined when the Torah does define the deity as the exact opposite - both claims based on zero evidence (faith), and weak attempt to avoid the burden of proof. Not to mention defining the Jewish ethnic race into existence via no evidence - we are all the same, why discriminate.

How ridiculous.

Ridiculous, indeed.

One wonders: Are these remarks -- out of the blue in the middle of a debate with another member on an entirely unrelated subject -- about the Jewish religion, or about me? This member himself seems rather unclear on that question.

The first two points are clearly about Judaism -- but they were never once mentioned in any of my exchanges with this member.

With the third point, he begins talking about our conversation -- though he alleges (predictably) that I made a statement that I never made.

The next point is clearly directed at me only (as astonishingly unjustified and incredible as it may be), and has nothing whatever to do with the Jewish religion.

The final point is (also predictably) a confused mishmash; It includes things that I have actually said (though distorted), things I NEVER said but which he has repeatedly attempted to put in my mouth, and more things unrelated to our exchanges and not previously mentioned.

I find it ironic above all that this member makes an allegation, to wit, saying you answered when you did not, of which HE has been repeatedly, inarguably and conclusively proven guilty.

Whatever he says, I will not be engaging this member again. I have learned, through bitter experience, that it is pointless and nothing more than an exercise in frustration and futile effort.

What is the point of attempting to debate a member who

(1) consistently and repeatedly misstates and distorts his opponents statements and insists on repeatedly putting his own words in his opponents mouths, even after repeated and detailed explanations, arguments and corrections -- all of which are ignored without rebuttal (a clearly uncivil practice, which was duly reported);

(2) consistently refuses to answer simple, direct and on-point questions, merely claiming that he already has -- without providing evidence that he has, in fact, answered them or even reviewing his supposed answers (which qualifies as an unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(3) claims that the asking of simple, direct and on-point questions -- and, incredibly enough, responding to his posts point by point or in his case sentence by sentence -- is somehow a warped debating style, without defending that ludicrous claim or providing evidence for it of any kind (still another unsubstantiated claim);

(4) repeatedly claims incoherency and obscurantism in his opponent's posts, without explaining or providing evidence for such claims (another unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(5) repeatedly accuses his opponent of being uncivil and derogatory, but without providing a single example of uncivil or derogatory remarks (yet another unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(6) characterizes an opponent as both a creationist and a fideist, both falsehoods, and again without proving substantiation for those claims (yet another unsupported, and clearly uncivil, claim)

And, as they say, SO ON AND SO ON AND SO ON.

It is particularly puzzling and mystifying that this same member has had the temerity to accuse others of trolling him.

As I say, I will no longer be engaging in conversation with this member. This post is not intended to be such an attempt; it is a warning to other members, and a public highlighting of this members (by now well-known and oft-reported) practices and habits on this forum for other members -- and for the moderators.

It has now been established that blatant and conscious [obvious characterization deleted] is not formally against the rules of this forum, and that all one may do in response to it is to point it out and show that the questionable statements are, in fact, false; and that I have done, and not for the first time.

I make no comments on moderator actions, and prescribe none. I said what I have said and no more.

I would add this: it's a great tragedy, but the difference between this member's execrable and deplorable style of "debate" -- that is, distorting the arguments of opponents, putting words into their mouths, refusing to acknowledge or respond to substantive arguments, hurling false accusations, and so on -- and the debating style of other, less objectionable members, is only one of degree. This sort of thing, in blatant, full-throated [characterization deleted] form or in "lite" form, seems to be what passes for "debate" around here now. That's discounting and ignoring the various religious fanatics, preachers, judgment-passers, and arrogant speakers for God that abound all around us.

Too bad.

(I apologize for once again participating in an offtopic discussion, but I see nowhere else to place these eminently necessary remarks.)

[assisigirl]

Hi cnorman18, having trouble collecting the donkey I see. Sorry, no refunds, caveat emptor, and all that


Has anyone seen NENB around, or NEBE, as I affectionately call him (NoEvidenceBringEvidence)

Nebe's question from assisigirl


What did you know about Balaam's Donkey, before you included it in your OP.
(nothing/something/a lot/wrote a book about it, what?)

The only evidence I need are links to Forum Posts by you that display any knowledge of the afore mentioned quadruped. If you have many posts regarding this beast of burden, then three links will do to posts that pre-date the OP.
If your answer is D'oh, then no links necessary.

[Sonofason]

At least your religion does not promote:
Genitalia mutilation - how on earth can anyone sane person approve of this.
War - Making claims for land based on claims by a being that is not a being with the 1st Jew Avraham that lived some 175 years. ..
Racism - refusal to accept non Jews even when their wife and son is a Jew. Thinking one race is above others by ethical blood when in fact ALL living things are related.
Dishonestly - saying you answered when you did not. Comparing religion to taste of chocolate or ice scream.
Fideism - redefining g-d as undefined when the Torah does define the deity as the exact opposite - both claims based on zero evidence (faith), and weak attempt to avoid the burden of proof. Not to mention defining the Jewish ethnic race into existence via no evidence - we are all the same, why discriminate.

How ridiculous.

Ridiculous, indeed.

One wonders: Are these remarks -- out of the blue in the middle of a debate with another member on an entirely unrelated subject -- about the Jewish religion, or about me? This member himself seems rather unclear on that question.

The first two points are clearly about Judaism -- but they were never once mentioned in any of my exchanges with this member.

With the third point, he begins talking about our conversation -- though he alleges (predictably) that I made a statement that I never made.

The next point is clearly directed at me only (as astonishingly unjustified and incredible as it may be), and has nothing whatever to do with the Jewish religion.

The final point is (also predictably) a confused mishmash; It includes things that I have actually said (though distorted), things I NEVER said but which he has repeatedly attempted to put in my mouth, and more things unrelated to our exchanges and not previously mentioned.

I find it ironic above all that this member makes an allegation, to wit, saying you answered when you did not, of which HE has been repeatedly, inarguably and conclusively proven guilty.

Whatever he says, I will not be engaging this member again. I have learned, through bitter experience, that it is pointless and nothing more than an exercise in frustration and futile effort.

What is the point of attempting to debate a member who

(1) consistently and repeatedly misstates and distorts his opponents statements and insists on repeatedly putting his own words in his opponents mouths, even after repeated and detailed explanations, arguments and corrections -- all of which are ignored without rebuttal (a clearly uncivil practice, which was duly reported);

(2) consistently refuses to answer simple, direct and on-point questions, merely claiming that he already has -- without providing evidence that he has, in fact, answered them or even reviewing his supposed answers (which qualifies as an unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(3) claims that the asking of simple, direct and on-point questions -- and, incredibly enough, responding to his posts point by point or in his case sentence by sentence -- is somehow a warped debating style, without defending that ludicrous claim or providing evidence for it of any kind (still another unsubstantiated claim);

(4) repeatedly claims incoherency and obscurantism in his opponent's posts, without explaining or providing evidence for such claims (another unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(5) repeatedly accuses his opponent of being uncivil and derogatory, but without providing a single example of uncivil or derogatory remarks (yet another unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(6) characterizes an opponent as both a creationist and a fideist, both falsehoods, and again without proving substantiation for those claims (yet another unsupported, and clearly uncivil, claim)

And, as they say, SO ON AND SO ON AND SO ON.

It is particularly puzzling and mystifying that this same member has had the temerity to accuse others of trolling him.

As I say, I will no longer be engaging in conversation with this member. This post is not intended to be such an attempt; it is a warning to other members, and a public highlighting of this members (by now well-known and oft-reported) practices and habits on this forum for other members -- and for the moderators.

It has now been established that blatant and conscious [obvious characterization deleted] is not formally against the rules of this forum, and that all one may do in response to it is to point it out and show that the questionable statements are, in fact, false; and that I have done, and not for the first time.

I make no comments on moderator actions, and prescribe none. I said what I have said and no more.

I would add this: it's a great tragedy, but the difference between this member's execrable and deplorable style of "debate" -- that is, distorting the arguments of opponents, putting words into their mouths, refusing to acknowledge or respond to substantive arguments, hurling false accusations, and so on -- and the debating style of other, less objectionable members, is only one of degree. This sort of thing, in blatant, full-throated [characterization deleted] form or in "lite" form, seems to be what passes for "debate" around here now. That's discounting and ignoring the various religious fanatics, preachers, judgment-passers, and arrogant speakers for God that abound all around us.

Too bad.

(I apologize for once again participating in an offtopic discussion, but I see nowhere else to place these eminently necessary remarks.)

My mouth actually dropped when I first saw the remarks that you are referring to here. You found them in a comment, I believe, that was addressed to me. At the time, I saw no viable explanation as to why this remark was directed to me. I still don't, which of course is why I have determined to not respond to his post at all. But I appreciate your comment here, and I certainly agree with what you have said concerning said poster. Thanks for shedding some light on that which I consider a depraved debating style.