Come on NNS...You are just complaining because you are continually proven wrong in your opinions by people like me and the Bible you don't know.

I'm sorry that you can dish it you but not take it...

You wrongly tried to twist what I said on Life after Death and I corrected you. You changed the word amazed to unique without any evidence for the change. You claimed I said I believed in God and misrepresented the facts.

I think you should apply the same rules in your Church as you want here...From now on Preachers shouldn't put up verses or preach because it is only their opinion...lol

I don't criticise your posts...I show where the Bible proves you wrong and you don't like it.

Believers have spent a lifetime lying to others...sorry if I show the truth from your Bible!

I will go gentler on you in the future BUT I will not stop proving you wrong with precise evidence!

Come to think of it, Not_Now.Soon, who are these people who only criticise the posts of others? I’m curious because I can’t imagine how this would be done.

Even when one does nothing more than criticise another’s claims, that person is still expressing a view of their own: that being that either they believe the other is wrong, or that they are sceptical of the other’s claims. This view of theirs could, in turn, be countered by providing sufficient evidence and/or reasoning for the opinion originally stated.

Sounds like a rather productive mode of discussion, to me.

That aside, as wise as it would be to not saddle oneself with a burden of proof by only calling to account those who make dubious claims, personally I think that would get a little boring after a while. Nevertheless, it sounds like I would have nothing but respect and admiration for these people to whom you have directed your challenge. I hope they respond.

Or is Opinionated2 right, and you’re just complaining because others discredit your claims?

I know from experience that the complaint that some are only criticising the opinions of others, while not stating any of their own, is a tactic used to divert attention away from a recent claim that is now laying in tatters. The biggest culprit on OLO here is LEGO. Every time I corner that poor sod, he starts complaining that I never make any claims myself. It is at this point that I bring to his attention the fact that the only opinion of mine that is necessary for a debate is that he is wrong.

If you don’t like people challenging your claims, Not_Now.Soon, then either don’t make them or make sure you have sufficient evidence for them beforehand so that you can swiftly shut down those who would challenge you. But don’t sit there try to shame others out of responding to you, by pretending that what they are doing constitutes trolling, just because you cannot support your claims with sufficient evidence. That’s just a sneaky attempt at silencing opposing views.

I believe dogs are better than cats.

“Often people will challenge, assault, or mock other posters views without owning up to their own views.”

That's because the knockers on this site you refer to generally don't have any views of their own. Most of them never start a discussion: they are like rock spiders, lurking until they get the chance to rubbish someone else. They are part of a pathetic 'wreck the joint' movement. Don't bother with 'challenges'; just state your own opinions, and ignore the fruit loops. It's not your job (or mine, or anyone else's) to set people to rights.

I believe people who order their steak well done should be removed from the gene pool.

Toni Lavis,

Is there any reason why people who order their steak 'well done' can't instead just be required to order the chicken?

Ugh, there I go again!

Sorry, Toni. I didn't mean to "rubbish" you. Because, you know, an individual's ideas are so intrinsic to who they are as a person that criticising their claims is the same as criticising them personally.

Apparently.