Bohemian's Waterfall
So at least you admit you are irritated. That's good
If your goal is to be irritating, then I have great news.
because maybe you will wake up and see the danger you are in and get saved from Hell before it's too late
You seem to confuse irritation for persuasion.
at least I don't see you cussing
When it comes to debate I find that cooler heads prevail.
but it still seems like you are bitter and grumpy
You confuse my irritation at you specifically as a general attitude about life. On the contrary, I am quite content with my station in life. I have done quite well for myself. I've had the distinct opportunity to learn from those smarter than myself, to help those less fortunate than myself. I've crossed oceans and continents, run half marathons, and hiked at least one mountain. Not bad for a poor boy raised by a widowed mother. I can sit in my reclining chair, feet on my coffee table, and read my books about history. That is bliss.
What is not blissful is listening to some pigheaded old man cocksure of his own rightness, launching torrents of indignities and vitriol at any unfortunate enough to cross his path that do not share his narrow dogmatic views. You do more to slander Christianity than anyone else here could ever hope to do. I come to createdebate because I see debate as a competition of wits and intellect, and as a competitive person I enjoy it, but there is no sport in "debating" with you because you don't debate. It's like playing chess with someone who doesn't understand the rules, and just knocks the pieces about.
I don't much read your stuff anymore
And yet you continue to reply. Sometimes multiple times. Sometimes to posts that are several days old.
You don't want evidence
If I don't want evidence then why am I asking for it and why are you refusing to provide it?
you want to believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell
As much as you appear to want me to agonize over my rejection of Christianity, I don't, no more than you agonize over your rejection of Hinduism.
As Jace so aptly put "For not being your problem, you seem much more concerned about it than I am."
Hell wasn't the point of my contention, so you can insist all you like, but I'm going to need you to present evidence for your claim, which you said was so easy to find. Your inability to present it, tells a very different story.
You don't want the evidence or you would use your lazy ignorant fingers and do a little googling of "science against the big bang and billions of years of time".
I want evidence, which is why I asked for it. If I didn't want it, I wouldn't have asked for it, and also why you never ask for evidence. Because you have no intention of reading any material that might challenge your dogmatic view point which you've delicately balanced your sense of meaning, self-worth, and existential purpose on which is why you will never think critically about it. You claimed to have scientific evidence that the Universe cannot be more than a million years old, and you claimed that it was easy to find. So from where comes you hesitation?
If you want to talk about that start another debate, or unban me from the one you already started and I'd be happy to discuss it. I'm asking for evidence for a specific claim you made in this thread. You either have evidence for that claim or you don't.
Yes. The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. I've been in real moderated debates between two debate teams in academic settings, and that is always how it goes. The person making the claim has the burden of proof; Not the side that claims to be the surest. That's not how debates work. Claiming to have evidence, and then refusing after being requested to provide that evidence will cause you to lose any real debate or at the very least cripple your argument beyond repair.
