I said just one more:) However, religion is all in the human head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mWiqkGy-Y&feature=related

Or this one:)

There,s an old way of thinking, and there's a new way. Sorry David, your convention should be commended in the name of truth:) but you ask any religious people with the small-minded nits that claims other wise, you have the human right to say what you want, with in the currant laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPG3-1gogXU&feature=related

And the currant Laws gives you and the religions people equal standing ground on what right for whats been played out here and on other sites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk&feature=related

Christan's and all that think other wise, are fully invited to what David has put out here for all to make there choices.

Good luck:)

cactus

Correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding for those baptised a Catholic they must attend mass every Sunday. For any Catholic who does not attend mass on Sunday and has no legitimate excuse for being absent, such a catholic is guilty of committing a mortal sin and if that catholic fails to confess their sin and obtain absolution and so dies with the stain of mortal sin on their soul they will burn in hell for eternity. Has Mr Ratzinger changed the rules? If not all I can say, given the stats, there must be a lot of Catholics in hell. I might be wrong as Mr Ratzinger may have dependenced with hell as it no longer fits with todays view of things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmTPThWD_c

Its makes one wonder what brain matter some people use, doesn't it:)

cactus:)

Just one more, then Iam off the bed:) let the old die as it should.

Have nice day:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM

cactus.

after attacking the religeons..and those dumb enough
to follow religeous creed..[which few could dispute]

after delivering the 'coup de grass'..
lol..to religeon

poor david [a/thiest]..
posted this

""Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.""

poor you david...who is they?

you claim the right*..to speak for others
so can speak for yourself..but have avoided much..in this debate

but lets get one thing straight
in your long rave..

you failed to address
the core athiest creed

""there is no such thing as god""

remember that mate?

we can clearly attack
and destroy the messenger's OF GOD
as being all that..*you say they are..

BUT FAULSE MESSENGERS..
do NOT invalidate god

except in your purile mind

so many words
so little proof..of no god

if you got an issue with faulse religeons
and who dont..that dosnt reflect anymore or less..*on god

that athism reflects
on the ravings of a davidian athiest god head
establishing..*his new faulse religeon...dont reflect on athiesm

and the herd of athiest diss believers
that buy into his religeon spin rave..
as proof there isnt god..lol

you exceed your brief
exposing your true adgenda
founding your neo [new]..religeon

they arnt comming after you
poor you

its so sad they ignore you
who has grown his flock..to but a few thousands

I want to let it go here but Atheist Foundation keeps forcing me to respond.
Clearly by psychological projection I meant the stream of demonising I've copped, such as misanthropic, egotistical, lacking ability to empathise, self-important, up myself etc.
I was of course suggesting David was projecting these attributes of "his" on to me.
He responds with <Psychological projection is only a valid assumption if the evidence can’t be produced for the claims of those allegedly using such a mechanism if they can’t be substantiated by empirical evidence>
Precisely. He doesn't know me from Adam, so what is his empirical evidence for any of those attributions?
He has none--thus I inferred he was projecting upon me.
Of course the much more plausible explanation is that he had nothing to offer in response to my criticism but abuse.
And then we get, <I mean no person any harm [I remain unscathed in this debate?] in my defence of reasoned thinking [as if any has been presented and I've attacked it!] and take no joy in having to defend a position with firm words and concepts not generally discussed["concepts", I must have missed those, all I've registered is hyperbole and abuse]. This can lead to accusations of ‘intolerance’ and I understand that [my accusations of intolerance were based entirely on evidence out of his own mouth].
Thank you, however, for pointing out my single error here, a spelling mistake, 'intollerance'. --and after I graciously overlooked some of your howlers!

And now, hopefully, I'll have done.

Ammonite, I accept your apology.