And Hells come back to haunt me

[snowtracks]

All you've got is a claim that it's impossible for this person to lie, from a person you can't even confirm to exist, and you consider this proof of your ridiculous claim?

This is what I find so childishly silly about all such claims. They all, almost invariably, boil down to wishful thinking and special pleading.

Snowy, isn't there something in your book about building a house on sand instead of proper foundations?

for your considertion: if cardboard is white in one side and black on the other side; and a person is looking at one side only, by deduction they could determine what the other side is by the preponderance of the evidence.

[Esquilax]

for your considertion: if cardboard is white in one side and black on the other side; and a person is looking at one side only, by deduction they could determine what the other side is by the preponderance of the evidence.

And if they're determined to deem the other side the same side as the one they're seeing, they'll ignore it all, remain willfully ignorant of science, and continue propagating their ignorance as if it were fact until the end of time.

That's the point: you're not deducing your conclusions based on evidence, you're only accepting that evidence that fits with the conclusion you already have.

[Cyberman]

for your considertion: if cardboard is white in one side and black on the other side; and a person is looking at one side only, by deduction they could determine what the other side is by the preponderance of the evidence.

That's more or less true, though how it relates to my question escapes me. However the fatal difference is you haven't offered up anything as evidence, or at least credible evidence, so to talk of a preponderance of it is as pointless as to speak of a preponderance of unicorn feathers.

[snowtracks]

for your considertion: if cardboard is white in one side and black on the other side; and a person is looking at one side only, by deduction they could determine what the other side is by the preponderance of the evidence.

That's more or less true, though how it relates to my question escapes me. However the fatal difference is you haven't offered up anything as evidence, or at least credible evidence, so to talk of a preponderance of it is as pointless as to speak of a preponderance of unicorn feathers.

when 'proof' or 'prove it' is demanded, it's a disingenuous request and everyone knows it.
ps: your jaundice attitude is not serving you well.

[Silver]

when 'proof' or 'prove it' is demanded, it's a disingenuous request

Poppycock.

[Cyberman]

I never mentioned proof, let alone demanded it. I only spoke of evidence. And it has to be credible - in other words, it must stand up to scrutiny, support whatever you're trying to assert, and not merely be a blatant attempt to discredit your opponents. As per your little ad hom at the end, there. If you can't or won't support your claims sufficiently, it's not my fault. Maybe you need better claims?

(Before we continue, and continue I prophesy we will, I just want to thank you for being the catalyst to my 8k medal! Yay!)

[Esquilax]

when 'proof' or 'prove it' is demanded, it's a disingenuous request and everyone knows it.
ps: your jaundice attitude is not serving you well.

Perhaps it seems that way when your position is so anemic that your only hope is to cobble together arguments from ignorance and an expanding and contracting set of definitions into a kind of evidence effigy, but for those of us with actual, demonstrable evidence and reality on our side, asking for justification of a statement is not only par for the course, but trivially easy to answer.

Oh, and just so you know, you may want to lay off on asserting what "everybody knows," because most of the time, a large part of everybody disagrees with your assessment of what counts as knowledge.

[Cyberman]

I'll say it for the gazillionth time: evidence is only a problem for someone who doesn't have any.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Wiki has quite an extensive article on hell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell

The only sane and rational response is to any kind of hell is not to give a shit.

not the best strategy to have a bravdo attitude about eternal destiny issues. however, free will allows that.

*sigh*

Your stupid beliefs about an afterlife don't affect us, you silly billy.

Do you get that?

---

when 'proof' or 'prove it' is demanded, it's a disingenuous request and everyone knows it.
ps: your jaundice attitude is not serving you well.

Only when the claim is so ridiculous, like yours, and only when the claimant knows s/he's got nothing to present when asked, like you.

[Godlesspanther]

Wiki has quite an extensive article on hell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell

The only sane and rational response is to any kind of hell is not to give a shit.

not the best strategy to have a bravdo attitude about eternal destiny issues. however, free will allows that.

This statement sums up just how arrogant and full of shit you are. There are countless hell scenarios and afterlife scenarios that you do not take seriously at all. You have the same attitude toward -- for i.e. -- the Muslim hell. You are not worried about it -- you have never lost a moments sleep over it. And yes, I'm sure of that. You have this attitude of what you yourself have called "bravado about eternal destiny."

You don't take any hell seriously except your own version -- and you expect other people to take your, and ony your, idiotic bullshit seriously.

Your hell is a joke. There is nothing brave about that -- just realistic.