The Satanic quality of the Internet

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes, certain people may have a problem with that line. That'S why I set it up.

I don't have a problem with it. I just said it was obvious.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think since it is your claim they are biased it is your job and duty to give evidence for your claims.

The evidence in this case is not there. I have searched in vain for it. The balanced viewpoint is absent. Only one side of the argument is presented. I understand why, but it doesn't change it's nature. Of course the other side makes similar one sided claims without presenting a balanced view. This is why I refrain from doing it.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh, is it? And there was me, always failing to see any such "well-documented" atheistic system of belief. Okay, I take the bait: show me the evidence that you've got, what is atheistic doctrine, what is the atheistic belief system?

Okay. Enough already. You seem like a well educated and intelligent person. You may have an advantage there. I'm not well educated and my intelligence has been questioned more than once.

Let's try this. Google search, atheism. I get 26,700,000 hits.

There it is. Books, magazine articles, forums, web sites, many web sites. What are they discussing? What are they proclaiming? Are they not actively trying to change peoples mind about the present world view? Maybe I'm missing something. Of course the is no codified set of rules or conditions. That would mean it's a religion, and we can't have that. What you believe in is your doctrine. You are an Atheist. You have to have a doctrine. Why deny it? I would think you would be proud of it.

So yea I'm tired of it to. Your refusal to answer my question on free speech disturbs me far more than anything else you have said.

So I'm done. Happy trails, good luck.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

The evidence in this case is not there. I have searched in vain for it. The balanced viewpoint is absent. Only one side of the argument is presented. I understand why, but it doesn't change it's nature. Of course the other side makes similar one sided claims without presenting a balanced view. This is why I refrain from doing it.

Your religious guy's "logic" surprise me time and again.

To make this clear. You cannot counter the studies' and experiment'S results, which had been run by scientific standards, btw. You even admit you did not find countering arguments or hints or any material falsifying their results. But you still claim they are biased, and what is even worse: you still claim you know it better - but you just weasel around to get away with wanting to be seen as a valid challenger to them without having anything to offer.

This will most likely reward me an infraction and maybe even brig time, I know and I accept it: but I just cannot help myself, I simply must call you an idiot. What'S more, a blindly believing, dogmatic idiot who wants to tell me he is neither blindly believing, nor dogmatic, he has no material, argument, hints, findings to counter studies and arguments, but makes claims that he nevertheless knows it better.

u_crank, the truth is simple: you are a dogmatic believer not wanting to be called that, and you have nothing.

Okay, Neal, Neon, bring it on, if you want, I don't resist nor protest.

Originally Posted by u crank

Your refusal to answer my question on free speech disturbs

That is the cream on top!