Once again, my first post said that if you believe then believe, if not then don't.
That has everything to do with this topic, and if you can't seem to take that in to your peanut sized brain, then go see a doctor.
Once again, the topic was not whether or not you should debate whether there is a God or not, it was whether the original post disproves the existence of one. Also, once again, you seem to be more adept at insults than logical thinking.
Your first post, came out of no where, and you told me that he had the right to tell me where I should and should not post, that's completely false, as I have a right to post anywhere that I please.
I have been posting in this thread for ages, so when someone posts claiming that a moderator who can forumban a person for not following the rules has no right to tell you if you can post here or not strikes me as a non sequitur as far as the discussion is concerned.
Please note that anything you say or tell me, will not have any effect whatsoever on me concluding my decision. You have no say on what I do, and never will.
This is evident since you seem to be the type to cover their ears and yell "lalalalalalalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!" when someone else tries to correct them.
You stating that I've 'lost' is very stupid, as there was nothing to lose to, as I don't see this as any sort of a competition, nor argument, merely someone with a peanut sized brain trying to stick up for himself, even though he knows he was awry to begin with.
Once again you seem more adept to insults than logical thinking. When I said cut you're losses, I meant it as a figure of speech, which is how it's supposed to be used. It did not necessarily refer to an literal loss as in terms of competition, merely to a failure, which in this sense, you did fail to justify yourself.
Your just some kid trying to cover up their footsteps, and not look like a cretin.
I would argue that the one who makes more insults than logical conclusions would be the one to look like a cretin.
Clearly there is nothing more to prove, as anyone reading these last few posts will successfully conclude that you are a total idiotic fool.
Those people would have to have a very low "intellectual IQ" to do that, now wouldn't they? Even with a low "intellectual IQ" I'm sure they would notice that "idiotic fool" is as redundant as "intellectual IQ", and that the former being true for it's original poster and the latter being lacking in it's original poster would be more than enough evidence to conclude who is the real "idiotic fool".
