Believers Vs Non-believers

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Can we have a triple debate sometime? Militant atheists, militant agnostics, militant faithful? I'm sure adding another position to the debate would make it about a third more fun than it usually is!

I don't know if I could ever be considered to have a militant lack of belief in a god...I am certainly militantly skeptical.

Zillah

demonspawn wrote: »

They all do. I guess I will have to hold your hand. Good grief. Fine, you can start with this one. Watch all parts and get back to me when you're finished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9_r4ghZahU

You realise this show is based on the disgraced book Chariot of the Gods, right? Here's some exerpts:

Most scientists and historians have rejected his ideas, claiming that the book's conclusions were based on faulty, pseudoscientific evidence, some of which was later demonstrated to be fraudulent and/or fabricated, and under illogical premises...
A 2004 article in Skeptic magazine[1] states that von Däniken plagiarized many of the book's concepts from Le Matin des Magiciens, that this book in turn was heavily influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos, and that the core of the ancient astronaut theory originates in H. P. Lovecraft's short stories "The Call of Cthulhu" and "At the Mountains of Madness".

So, uh, it's based on Lovecraft's fictional stories about aliens. Awesome! This is WAY MORE EXCITING than reality.

EDIT:

Oh, here's a nice one:

Some also question von Däniken's credibility, as he has also knowingly put forward fraudulent evidence to advance his hypotheses, such as photographs of pottery "depicting UFOs", supposedly from an archaeological dig dating back to the biblical era. The PBS television series Nova determined that this was a fraud, and even located the potter who made them. When confronted with this evidence, von Däniken argued that the deception was justified because some people would only believe his theories if they saw actual proof.[7]

The author literally fabricated evidence because he was so sick of debunkers demanding he produce some. That's awesome.

This is the eijit in question:

philologos

Hm, I don't think I would regard myself as "militant faithful" either, but it suited the OP!

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know if I could ever be considered to have a militant lack of belief in a god...I am certainly militantly skeptical.

Why are you still posting? You're supposed to be watching videos about aliens and UFOs. :rolleyes: Oh, maybe that kind of evidence doesn't interest you. Maybe this will be more to your liking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk

MagicMarker

demonspawn wrote: »

They all do. I guess I will have to hold your hand. Good grief. Fine, you can start with this one. Watch all parts and get back to me when you're finished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9_r4ghZahU

I really don't take your beliefs seriously enough to warrant wasting an hour of my life on that shít, however it just so happens I came across a reference to the pyramids in clip 4, and as I suspected, there was no evidence presented.

Maybe the word ''evidence'' has a different meaning to you than it does to everyone else?

demonspawn

Zillah wrote: »

You realise this show is based on the disgraced book Chariot of the Gods, right? Here's some exerpts:

Why don't you just watch it and make up your own mind instead of letting others do your thinking for you. You'd make a great Christian.

Ickle Magoo

demonspawn wrote: »

Why are you still posting? You're supposed to be watching videos about aliens and UFOs. :rolleyes: Oh, maybe that kind of evidence doesn't interest you. Maybe this will be more to your liking.

I'm not "supposed" to be doing anything, thanks very much.

demonspawn

MagicMarker wrote: »

I really don't take your beliefs seriously enough to warrant wasting an hour of my life on that shít, however it just so happens I came across a reference to the pyramids in clip 4, and as I suspected, there was no evidence presented.

Maybe the word ''evidence'' has a different meaning to you than it does to everyone else?

Whatever man, you ask for evidence then dismiss any evidence provided without giving it a fair hearing. You'd also make a great Christian.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure why you think anyone outside of CT circles would consider a YouTube posting by a CT group as being "evidence"...convincing or otherwise.

Ironically I've heard almost exactly the same argument as above for not taking the bible as, well, gospel.

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think anyone outside of CT circles would consider a YouTube posting by a CT group as being "evidence"...convincing or otherwise.

Ironically I've heard almost exactly the same argument as above for not taking the bible as, well, gospel.

Did you even watch the video on UFO disclosure? It's almost 2 hours long so I doubt it. Why not just watch the video and come back to me with your opinion? That's all I ask.

Ickle Magoo

Why can't the evidence be presented in less than 2 hours? I'm not wasting two hours of my life watching a CT film, can you not find anything more concise to back up your claims?

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why can't the evidence be presented in less than 2 hours? I'm not wasting two hours of my life watching a CT film, can you not find anything more concise to back up your claims?

Nope, if you can't take the time to review the evidence I provide then you obviously have no interest in any evidence I provide. Just click halfway through and watch 20 mins of it. Or watch it tomorrow when you have time. I really don't care either way.

Just stop telling me I have no evidence if you're not even willing to entertain that evidence yourself.

Zillah

demonspawn wrote: »

Why don't you just watch it and make up your own mind instead of letting others do your thinking for you. You'd make a great Christian.

I wouldn't bother watching it because the people behind it have been caught blatantly lying and fabricating evidence. I'll give the Disclosure Project a shot though, I can't find anything immediately demonstrative of ridiculousness. Though the website does have a disquieting number of dollar signs, and...am I right that they're offering courses to train people in how to be ambassadors to aliens?

philologos

demonspawn wrote: »

Nope, if you can't take the time to review the evidence I provide then you obviously have no interest in any evidence I provide. Just click halfway through and watch 20 mins of it. Or watch it tomorrow when you have time. I really don't care either way.

Ickle Magoo will find it incredibly odd that I am actually arguing on her side for once :pac:

BUT... why should you insist that people take any interest in your views if you cannot articulate them in an intelligent manner?

If you truly hold to your beliefs in conspiracy theories, and indeed if you truly deny biological evolution, you should be able to explain why you do both.

You know, and I know, if you didn't care you wouldn't be posting. Pretty much I wouldn't be posting about Christianity on boards if I didn't care about it.

Dades

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Zillah - I would have quite the argument with you right now, only I'm - off to play soccer....till next time...:D

You play soccer...? Now I'm impressed!

Jakkass wrote: »

Can we have a triple debate sometime? Militant atheists, militant agnostics, militant faithful? I'm sure adding another position to the debate would make it about a third more fun than it usually is!

That would be a great idea except demonspawn is clearly an unsuspecting atheist.

Folks can we keep this civil? Thanks.

The Mad Hatter

This is turning into the libertarian thread all over again. demonspawn, if you're going to have any hope of convincing any of us, then present the evidence yourself. If it can't be explained without the videos, then how convincing can it be, really?

ColmDawson

Zillah wrote: »

So, uh, it's based on Lovecraft's fictional stories about aliens. Awesome! This is WAY MORE EXCITING than reality.

As a wise man once said, what other reason is there to believe in something?

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo will find it incredibly odd that I am actually arguing on her side for once :pac:

BUT... why should you insist that people take any interest in your views if you cannot articulate them in an intelligent manner?

If you truly hold to your beliefs in conspiracy theories, and indeed if you truly deny biological evolution, you should be able to explain why you do both.

You know, and I know, if you didn't care you wouldn't be posting. Pretty much I wouldn't be posting about Christianity on boards if I didn't care about it.

And that's the second post of yours I've thanked tonight...must be a full moon! :P

demonspawn

Jakkass wrote: »

BUT... why should you insist that people take any interest in your views if you cannot articulate them in an intelligent manner?

Seeing as you just jumped into this thread, I'm the one being attacked for my views. Others obviously have an interest or this thread would have died long ago. I've articulated my argument in an intelligent manner, if you disagree then that's your opinion. Not much I can do about that.

If you truly hold to your beliefs in conspiracy theories, and indeed if you truly deny biological evolution, you should be able to explain why you do both.

I've never denied biological evolution, please show me where I have. I've suggested that humans did not evolve in the same manner as other lifeforms on this planet. One only needs to look at how humans have bred dogs over thousands of years to suit their needs to understand this.

demonspawn

Dades wrote: »

That would be a great idea except demonspawn is clearly an unsuspecting atheist.

Folks can we keep this civil? Thanks.

I don't know why you keep insisting that I'm an atheist. I accept the possibility of a god but have no knowledge to make an informed decision on the matter. What am I if not an agnostic? Please stop making assumptions about me, you really have no clue.

The Mad Hatter

demonspawn wrote: »

I don't know why you keep insisting that I'm an atheist. I accept the possibility of a god but have no knowledge to make an informed decision on the matter.

That is atheism, I'm afraid.

demonspawn

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

This is turning into the libertarian thread all over again. demonspawn, if you're going to have any hope of convincing any of us, then present the evidence yourself. If it can't be explained without the videos, then how convincing can it be, really?

I've explained my theory sufficiently, then I am met with demands for evidence. What else should I provide as evidence? I'm unable to disclose classified documents that I have no access to, so what else do you want?

Zillah

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That is atheism, I'm afraid.

THOU SHALT NOT UTTER THE ACCURSED WORD!

philologos

demonspawn wrote: »

Seeing as you just jumped into this thread, I'm the one being attacked for my views. Others obviously have an interest or this thread would have died long ago. I've articulated my argument in an intelligent manner, if you disagree then that's your opinion. Not much I can do about that.

And you in the OP have attacked mine and others. It's fair game. All ideas are put to scrutiny on these boards. Including mine, and including yours.

Referring people to a video is gratuitous. If you need a video to make a case it doesn't seem to be too strong. You can argue the evidence yourself if you know what is being claimed in the video. You shouldn't expect people to take 2 hours of their time just to learn enough to be able to discuss with you about why they think it is wrong.

demonspawn wrote: »

I've never denied biological evolution, please show me where I have. I've suggested that humans did not evolve in the same manner as other lifeforms on this planet. One only needs to look at how humans have bred dogs over thousands of years to suit their needs to understand this.

Claiming that humans didn't evolve in the same manner as other lifeforms would only make sense in one context, and that is that humans arrived at a different biological result than other evolved species. However, this does not mean that the process differs.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That is atheism, I'm afraid.

Or agnosticism. One could argue that agnosticism is effectively agnostic atheism. A lot of people don't wish to identify as atheists. A friend of mine thinks that his agnosticism is actually different to atheism. Therefore he chooses to identify as an agnostic rather than an atheist. Murky waters. You guys need to sort them out

Ickle Magoo

demonspawn wrote: »

I've never denied biological evolution, please show me where I have. I've suggested that humans did not evolve in the same manner as other lifeforms on this planet. One only needs to look at how humans have bred dogs over thousands of years to suit their needs to understand this.

Actually, you suggested an alien/simian hybrid was the real adam and eve story. Is the evidence for than on the YouTube clip, too?

demonspawn

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That is atheism, I'm afraid.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

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

No, it's not I'm afraid. I reject no beliefs in the existence of deities and I do not hold the position that there are no deities. I believe deities could exist, but have no evidence either way.

Perhaps you are the ones that are confused.

Zillah

demonspawn wrote: »

I've explained my theory sufficiently, then I am met with demands for evidence. What else should I provide as evidence? I'm unable to disclose classified documents that I have no access to, so what else do you want?

Uhm...objects made from elements that do not occur on Earth found in the ruins of the Great Pyramid. Carbon dated scrolls showing an understanding of General Relativity, String Theory or Quantum Gravity from the era in question. A functioning anti-matter reactor found in the base of the pyramid. Designs for an antigravity drive system.

I know all of these things sound ridiculous, but you're the one asserting that an interstellar race visited Earth and interfered with human civilisation. All of these things should be child's play for such a race...quite a piss poor impact they made if all they left behind were some well aligned stone structures.

philologos

demonspawn wrote: »

No, it's not I'm afraid. I reject no beliefs in the existence of deities and I do not hold the position that there are no deities. I believe deities could exist, but have no evidence either way.

Less evidence than any of the conspiracy theories you subscribe to?

demonspawn

Jakkass wrote: »

And you in the OP have attacked mine and others. It's fair game. All ideas are put to scrutiny on these boards. Including mine, and including yours.

Yes, I have attacked atheists but unfortunately you have no beliefs to defend. Must be a miserably boring life being an atheist.

Referring people to a video is gratuitous. If you need a video to make a case it doesn't seem to be too strong. You can argue the evidence yourself if you know what is being claimed in the video. You shouldn't expect people to take 2 hours of their time just to learn enough to be able to discuss with you about why they think it is wrong.

It's evidence, regarless of what you may think. If people can't even take the time to review the evidence, then that's your problem not mine. What if I provided a 300 page government document clearly stating the existence of UFOs, would you complain about having to read that? I'm under the impression that you would.

The Mad Hatter

demonspawn wrote: »

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

No, it's not I'm afraid. I reject no beliefs in the existence of deities and I do not hold the position that there are no deities. I believe deities could exist, but have no evidence either way.

Perhaps you are the ones that are confused.

First of all, I'm not sure about that - I'm only one person.

Second of all, you are an agnostic atheist.

philologos

demonspawn wrote: »

Yes, I have attacked atheists but unfortunately you have no beliefs to defend. Must be a miserably boring life being an atheist.

Eh? I'm a Christian! That's why I said it was odd that I was on agreement with Ickle Magoo.

demonspawn wrote: »

It's evidence, regarless of what you may think. If people can't even take the time to review the evidence, then that's your problem not mine. What if I provided a 300 page government document clearly stating the existence of UFOs, would you complain about having to read that? I'm under the impression that you would.

It appears that you can't take the time to even articulate it. You expect people to waste 2 hours of their time watching a video rather than investing your own time so that people understand what you're talking about!

Ickle Magoo

If you aren't using Wiki as gospel - technically, atheism means "without-gods" so you need only be "without gods", to qualify. There is much debate over the "proper" definition of atheist; whether atheism is rejection, a disbelief, a lack of belief, etc...it's different things for different people, that's why you get anti-theistic atheism right through to deistic atheism and everything in-between.

Btw, Jackass is not an atheist - by a loooooooong shot. So now you are just randomly attacking anyone who wants a better discussion than being constantly referred to a hideously long YouTube clip.

The Mad Hatter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you aren't using Wiki as gospel - technically, atheism means "without-gods" so you need only be "without gods", to qualify. There is much debate over the "proper" definition of atheist; whether atheism is rejection, a disbelief, a lack of belief, etc...it's different things for different people, that's why you get anti-theistic atheism right through to deistic atheism and everything in-between.

Thanks for circumventing my laziness there, Ickle

Zillah

demonspawn wrote: »

What if I provided a 300 page government document clearly stating the existence of UFOs, would you complain about having to read that? I'm under the impression that you would.

Uh, no one is saying UFOs don't exist. The fact that there are unidentified flying objects does not mean that an advanced alien race taught the ancient Egyptians how to build stone structures.

demonspawn

Zillah wrote: »

Uhm...objects made from elements that do not occur on Earth found in the ruins of the Great Pyramid. Carbon dated scrolls showing an understanding of General Relativity, String Theory or Quantum Gravity from the era in question. A functioning anti-matter reactor found in the base of the pyramid. Designs for an antigravity drive system.

I know all of these things sound ridiculous, but you're the one asserting that an interstellar race visited Earth and interfered with human civilisation. All of these things should be child's play for such a race...quite a piss poor impact they made if all they left behind were some well aligned stone structures.

The mortar used to build the Great Pyramid is of an unknown origin. It has been analyzed repeatedly and it's chemical composition has been established. However, even using modern techniques, scientists have been unable to reproduce it.

Line 30 if you can't be bothered reading the whole thing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sZkTOMHSlz0C&pg=PA547&lpg=PA547&dq=Great+Pyramid+mortar+composition&source=bl&ots=IoF06VjGDG&sig=GidI3NEU0yI5uWhBFP6m09E5Y3c&hl=en&ei=Y4qBTL3yAs2N4gbgvonTCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Great%20Pyramid%20mortar%20composition&f=false

philologos

demonspawn wrote: »

It's evidence, regarless of what you may think. If people can't even take the time to review the evidence, then that's your problem not mine. What if I provided a 300 page government document clearly stating the existence of UFOs, would you complain about having to read that? I'm under the impression that you would.

I would expect you to have shown evidence that you yourself have read it. That you can reference your case cogently, and that you can use persuasive argument in respect to your beliefs. I see none of these so far.

It would be like me saying to everyone who criticises my beliefs that they should just get lost and read the Bible.

It doesn't work that way. I need to show evidence that I myself have read it, and I have a cogent knowledge of it, and that I can argue my case clearly as to why I believe in Christianity. I think I can do this. Others think I can't. Which is why we end up having debates about the existence of God from time to time.

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you aren't using Wiki as gospel - technically, atheism means "without-gods" so you need only be "without gods", to qualify. There is much debate over the "proper" definition of atheist; whether atheism is rejection, a disbelief, a lack of belief, etc...it's different things for different people, that's why you get anti-theistic atheism right through to deistic atheism and everything in-between.

Btw, Jackass is not an atheist - by a loooooooong shot. So now you are just randomly attacking anyone who wants a better discussion than being constantly referred to a hideously long YouTube clip.

Whatever. I'm not going to debate over the definition of a word. I honestly don't care that much to waste any more time discussing it. You want to be an atheist, that's fine. I'm not an atheist, accept that fact and deal with it.

By the way, those wiki quotes are based on the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Please excuse me if I take their definition over your own interpretation.

Zillah

demonspawn wrote: »

Line 30 if you can't be bothered reading the whole thing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sZkTOMHSlz0C&pg=PA547&lpg=PA547&dq=Great+Pyramid+mortar+composition&source=bl&ots=IoF06VjGDG&sig=GidI3NEU0yI5uWhBFP6m09E5Y3c&hl=en&ei=Y4qBTL3yAs2N4gbgvonTCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Great%20Pyramid%20mortar%20composition&f=false

So? We don't know how they made their mortar. We can make much better cement now. It's not like this mortar is better than anything on Earth, we just don't know the exact method they used. And there's nothing to suggest this mortar needed alien technology.

Mortar is hardly the equivalent of an antimatter reactor now is it?

demonspawn

Jakkass wrote: »

I would expect you to have shown evidence that you yourself have read it. That you can reference your case cogently, and that you can use persuasive argument in respect to your beliefs. I see none of these so far.

It would be like me saying to everyone who criticises my beliefs that they should just get lost and read the Bible.

It doesn't work that way. I need to show evidence that I myself have read it, and I have a cogent knowledge of it, and that I can argue my case clearly as to why I believe in Christianity. I think I can do this. Others think I can't. Which is why we end up having debates about the existence of God from time to time.

How's about this then? My beliefs are my own. I don't ask anyone to share those beliefs with me. If my beliefs come under attack as they have in this thread, I will do my best to explain them. If you choose to refuse to accept that explanation, then that's your problem.

This discussion has run it's course and I see no reason in continuing. I refuse to defend myself against pure ignorance and arrogance. Believe in what you want, or don't believe as the case may be. I honestly don't care anymore.

The Mad Hatter

We also can't recreate the paints Leonardo DaVinci used to paint The Last Supper. He must have been an alien.

ShooterSF

demonspawn wrote: »

Whatever. I'm not going to debate over the definition of a word. I honestly don't care that much to waste any more time discussing it. You want to be an atheist, that's fine. I'm not an atheist, accept that fact and deal with it.

I'd say a deal could be reached here. Let's not bother debating over the definition of a word like you say and instead focus on peoples beliefs rather than their "label". I consider myself an "atheist" but only how I define the label. I would not be what you classify as an "atheist".
So instead of coming on here and telling me what I believe based on a definition of a word, take the time to find out mine and fellow posters ACTUAL beliefs.
Too much to ask?

demonspawn

Zillah wrote: »

So? We don't know how they made their mortar. We can make much better cement now. It's not like this mortar is better than anything on Earth, we just don't know the exact method they used. And there's nothing to suggest this mortar needed alien technology.

Mortar is hardly the equivalent of an antimatter reactor now is it?

You must not have many friends if this is the way you carry on. Read my last post, I'm done arguing with people like you.

philologos

demonspawn wrote: »

How's about this then? My beliefs are my own. I don't ask anyone to share those beliefs with me. If my beliefs come under attack as they have in this thread, I will do my best to explain them. If you choose to refuse to accept that explanation, then that's your problem.

That's fine, but if you wish to discuss your beliefs they are open to question on public fora such as these. That's true of my beliefs, your beliefs, Dades' beliefs, Ickle Magoo's beliefs and so on.

This is criticism, it is applied to anything that people deem it worthy to be applied to. You can take a search in this forum, and see how much my ideas have come under attack on this forum. You sometimes just have to learn that your ideas will have a jolly good thrashing on this forum if articulated!

By the by, don't pretend that you haven't attacked peoples beliefs on this thread already:

Why don't you just watch it and make up your own mind instead of letting others do your thinking for you. You'd make a great Christian.

You've shown us that you hold Christianity to a high level of scrutiny. Why should you expect more for your beliefs in conspiracy theories?

demonspawn wrote: »

This discussion has run it's course and I see no reason in continuing. I refuse to defend myself against pure ignorance and arrogance. Believe in what you want, or don't believe as the case may be. I honestly don't care anymore.

I don't know if it has, we're only starting to get into some of the fundamentals of what is fair criticism, what isn't, and what ideas should be held to scrutiny and what ideas shouldn't.

Ickle Magoo

demonspawn wrote: »

Whatever. I'm not going to debate over the definition of a word. I honestly don't care that much to waste any more time discussing it. You want to be an atheist, that's fine. I'm not an atheist, accept that fact and deal with it.

By the way, those wiki quotes are based on the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Please excuse me if I take their definition over your own interpretation.

The first line of a page long description of a word is hardly the whole story - remember many words and their meanings evolve as society and general opinion does, they aren't set in stone.

It's rather ironic that you can't be bothered to waste any more of your time on the very definition of the forum you are posting in, yet expect that forum to sit through a two hour posting you have made.

demonspawn

Jakkass wrote: »

This is criticism, it is applied to anything that people deem it worthy to be applied to. You can take a search in this forum, and see how much my ideas have come under attack on this forum. You sometimes just have to learn that your ideas will have a jolly good thrashing on this forum if articulated!

I have no problem defending my beliefs but when I have to defend myself against 10 people spouting the same crap over and over and I'm forced to repeat myself over and over I tend to get a bit angry.

You lot have nothing to defend, you don't believe in anything to defend so you just automatically go on the attack. You attack everything and it's just getting boring to be honest.

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The first line of a page long description of a word is hardly the whole story - remember many words and their meanings evolve as society and general opinion does, they aren't set in stone.

It's rather ironic that you can't be bothered to waste any more of your time on the very definition of the forum you are posting in, yet expect that forum to sit through a two hour posting you have made.

This isn't the Atheist & Atheist forum is it? No, it's not. Give it a rest already.

midlandsmissus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And that's the second post of yours I've thanked tonight...must be a full moon! :P

Will wonders never cease

In fairness, and I could be wrong, I haven't looked at his history, but it sounds like this is the first time Demonspawn has put an argument to the atheists on here.

The first time is the worst! And the hardest! And you do take it very hardly and say you're never coming back. I'm nearly sure I did. Then I decided to come back and I remember saying that I had sucked it up and I was tougher this time, and I remember some-one on here saying 'good!'.

It's only when you're here a while that you realise people aren't going to be swayed from either side, but that it's good and interesting to have debates over our differing viewpoints anyway. Also, you have to be able to inject a bit of humour into things. I mean, you're not the worst bunch

Ickle Magoo

demonspawn wrote: »

This isn't the Atheist & Atheist forum is it? No, it's not. Give it a rest already.

I don't think it's the alien and agnostic forum either. :P

Seriously, give a solid argument which is both intelligently articulated and supported with viable evidence from reputable sources and you will have a captive audience, unfortunately people tend to approach this forum with neither and then get upset when they are laughed out the door again.

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think it's the alien and agnostic forum either.

I was quite happy to let my personal beliefs be overlooked, others here obviously were not. For some reason you atheists think that your explanation is the only correct explanation and any other opinion is automatically wrong. That's a terrible way to live your life. It's called intellectual fascism.

Dades

demonspawn, let me ask you this, do you believe the Christian God, Muslim God or any other gods as suggested by men exist? I'm not asking you if you if you know (nobody does!) or if you care, but on the balance of probabilities, do you believe any of those gods exist?

Secondly, you've come on to this forum in a rather aggressive fashion and yet somehow seem surprised to meet opposition to your views. You openly stated you hate atheists, and yet here you still are when any other forum would have ejected you long ago.

Give credit where where credit is due. You've presented evidence which amounts to YouTube clips, while having ignored any of the links or suggestions people have made to you over the last couple of days, and yet people are still willing to engage you.

Don't throw it away or get yourself banned. Step back and instead of looking to express how different you are read a few more threads around and make yourself more familiar with where you are.