rangerx

Saying so, doesn't make it so. Not on this forum. Besides that, it's off topic. Yet another transgression. You make this too easy.

No, you're a crackpot for being obtuse and petulant. However time "Transcendence of time and space" is not a thing, so you're just a fool to think that has anything to do with science.

Try a bigger font. It might be more persuasive.

You won't be missed. You're not the first crackpot in a long string of banned crackpots, probably not the last. Just so you know, sock puppetry fails here too, so save yourself that attempt. Tick tick, tick tick....

Shhh. Our handlers have instructed us to not use the c word

What part of your own quote don't you understand? " even if it means I have to decondition some of the emotional investment which atheists" The prerequisite is not the conversion itself, but the act of attempting to do so.

Converting the heathens. Yet another rule broken.

That's fourth or fifth time you posted that. Yet another rule transgression. You make this too easy. Maybe if you post it a couple more times, I might roll over. Not.

Maybe you should start your own forum then. This one seems to get under your skin. By hey, masochism is a thing too, you know all that sciencey stuff.

If the truth tickled you with a thousand feathers you'd still be obtuse AF.

Weak argument. Now you insist on wasting my time screenshotting things you can read by scrolling back. Another rule broken, right there.

Nobody owes you anything, no less clarity on abundantly clear rules. It's been explained to you a hundred times. You just don't get it, because you refuse to hear it.

You still don't get it. You were locked for breaking rules, not your point. Get over yourself and that phony assertion.

What we all realize is you getting all pissy as the slightest criticism. I pointed out four of them, but you ignored them anyway. Nobody has to explain anything to you and your responses are petulant by default.

Lies. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You were locked for breaking rules, not because of your point. You just don't get it.

They are not controlling it. They allowed you to present it. The criticisms came from the members, not the mods. They shut you down because of your propensity to break or subvert the rules. Too bad too, because it actually is a topic for discussion in a scientific manner. My first post in response to it was to let it stand because you initially appeared to actually take science seriously, but I was wrong. You're proven yourself a crackpot, after all.

The owners and mods of this board have no obligation to host your nonsense. If you want to play the game, abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules, leave the game. You don't get to make up new rules or create bogus reasons for ignoring them. And just so you know... Dunning-Kruger is widely accepted science, even among theists, particularly because it's not exclusive to religion. For someone who is (feebly) claiming everyone else is dismissive of (debunked) science, you've added a heaping helping of hypocrisy to your blathering. Tick tick, tick tick...

Dunning Kruger Effect

Linking When you link to another website, don't do the "Click Here" gimmick. It gives people no idea what you're linking to. Rather, you should make the link text descriptive of what the link actually is about. Hijacking Try not to hijack a thread and bend the topic to your will. Nobody likes a megalomaniac. Try to stay on topic and keep to what the original poster said. Converting the Heathens Don't try to convert people to your religion. Leave them alone. If you try, you'll find yourself banned. Allow Comment If you're posting an idea, be receptive to comments. If someone criticizes you, don't get mad at them. Take the comment well and, if necessary, reply to them to defend yourself (without being mean or nasty). Tick tick, tick tick...

And bringing it up in subsequent threads is against the rules. Tick tick, tick tick...

Attacking the person, not the discussion is against the rules. Kafei is not long for this place.

So let's reverse roles for a moment. Let's say I put a hundred links in a comment that refuted your point. Would you watch every one of them start to finish before commenting further? Quite frankly, I doubt it and that's the reason for the rule. Besides that, being a zealot fails for a refusal to listen. Being a martyr won't win the day by appealing to sympathy either. Fail x2

Citing links to support an ongoing discussion is alright, but insisting people read outside links without discussing the content in the thread is against the rules too. There's just no way anyone should have to browse through the dozens of (dubious or otherwise) Youtube links to qualify themselves for the discussion on this board.

I missed the part of the video which proves the existence of God by scientific means. Please comment by directing me to the point on the timeline where that happens. No wait, don't bother. It's little more than anti-atheist rant and has nothing to do with anything, no less the OP. If you want an anti-atheist thread, start one, but cut with the bullshit that any dissent toward your assertion is an atheist conspiracy in this thread. Why do you keep bringing that up anyway, when I have (several times) told you I'm agnostic, not atheist? All you've done is re-assure me in my position on the matter. If it's your lot in life to a pro apostolate, you've failed your mission, miserably.