God is a Fake

[falcon9]

I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...

You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.   

As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance.  By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist.   Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).

I have admitted many times that my belief is not in something that is considered fact, so I do not know why you are acting as if you are putting me in my place by saying God's existence is not considered fact as that is what I have been saying all along.

Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.

This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning.  Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).

Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.

Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).

You act like it is new that I say I believe in God. I have been saying that all along. Also, I have been emphasizing that I am not claiming his existence as fact. Therefore your attempt to make it seem like you "tricked" me into saying that is immature and false as I have been the one saying it all along without need of coertion by one 'falcon9."

Please define whatever a "coertion" is supposed to be.

I did not claim that God is real by fact- I claimed that it is a fact that I believe in something. The act of me beliving is a fact, the proper noun which i believe in is not proven by fact rather is believed by faith. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.[/b]

Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.

These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning.  If so, I should be famous by now.  Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).

This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.

The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above.  Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters.  The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.

Luckily you demonstrated none of that in your reply and instead just attempted once again to appear superior, and failed.  Please strengthen your arguments for the next reply so this will be more time worthy.

Unfortunately for your empty denial, you quoted where this was demonstrated in this posted reply.  Your mere empty denial, without substantiation, does not refute this.  Although, you have established that as your pattern of simply gainsaying what you don't like, in your opinion, (which, likfe 'faith', is that which lacks substantive evidence).

[falcon9]

I'm going to ask that you change the font or so something to differentiate what you added to this quote as I do not have the time to search for it.

No.  This organization does not comply with terrorist demands.  In other words, make due or make haste.

[SurveyMack10]

I'm going to ask that you change the font or so something to differentiate what you added to this quote as I do not have the time to search for it.

No.  This organization does not comply with terrorist demands.  In other words, make due or make haste.

I am not sure where you added into that post and as soon as you add come clarity to that situation I will be glad to reply as I am not going to dig through and find what information is new and what is not. It is not a difficult request, but clearly you do not want me to respond to what you said or you would comply.

If you choose not to that is perfectly fine, but considering I have other things to do that sit on the FC forum I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize. I assume this is the last of the conversation as you have shown you will not reorganize. So it has been nice talking to you and I respect that you do not believe in God as it is a choice, I hope you can respect the beliefs of others as well. Goodbye.

[falcon9]

I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.

For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.

[SurveyMack10]

I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.

For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.

Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig but as it was a typo it did not come across as such.

Please respond to said post with dig in place of dif. Thanks.

[falcon9]

I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.

For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.

Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig but as it was a typo it did not come across as such.

Please respond to said post with dig in place of dif. Thanks.

Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye".  Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in", at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'.   Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.

[SurveyMack10]

I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.

For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.

Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig but as it was a typo it did not come across as such.

Please respond to said post with dig in place of dif. Thanks.

Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye".  Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in", at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'.   Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.

Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye. (You could have asked directly instead of disguising the question with an insult). Since you said you were not going to organize your post into a readable structure where I could tell where you added your responses and since I am not going to dig through the posts to see where you threw stuff in, I assumed the conversation was over. However, if you would like to reorganize your post into an effective structure I'd be glad to continue the conversation. Sorry that you were confused as to why the good-bye was there and glad we have cleared it up.

[falcon9]

I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.

For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.

Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig

 

Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye".  Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in', at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'.   Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead. [/quote]

Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye.

I remain disinterested as to "why" you said it since I'm already aware of what the word means.  There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what "goodbye" actually indicates, however.

[SurveyMack10]

I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.

For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.

Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig

 

Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye".  Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in', at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'.   Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.

Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye.

I remain disinterested as to "why" you said it since I'm already aware of what the word means.  There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what "goodbye" actually indicates, however.
[/quote]

I see you are still confused, I will restate it in a different way.

Whenever you implied that you would not reorganize your post into a readable form I assumed the conversation was over,I was not expecting another reply from you as you had implied you would not at all rephrase or reorganize into a more effective format and even called this a "terrorist demand." Notice how this could give me the idea that the conversation was over. That is why I said goodbye. You then replied, showing that the conversation was either not over, or that you wanted the last word. Since you decided to reply after the initial goodbye the insinuation that the conversation was over was contradicted so the goodbye proved not necessary. Hope that cleared that up for you!

[falcon9]

 

Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye".  Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in', at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'.   Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.

Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye.

I remain disinterested as to "why" you said it since I'm already aware of what the word means.  There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what "goodbye" actually indicates, however.

I see you are still confused, I will restate it in a different way.

Your own confusion over what the word, "goodbye" means and your failure to 'confuse' me do not mean that I'm the confused one.

Whenever you implied that you would not reorganize your post into a readable form I assumed the conversation was over ...

There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demands.  Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.

I was not expecting another reply from you as you had implied you would not at all rephrase or reorganize into a more effective format and even called this a "terrorist demand."

Again, I "implied" no such thing; I directly and explicitly refused to comply with your demand because your inability to follow a discussion in which you are a primary participant is not my responsibility.  This point was emphasized by exaggerating your repeated demand as a terrorist one, (alluding to a form of coerision you were attempting to use to get me to follow your 'instructions', 'or else').

Notice how this could give me the idea that the conversation was over. That is why I said goodbye.

Once again you've shown that you are unable to follow the course and _sequence_ of the discussion.  Message IDs list the date and time of replies and these show that you posted your "goodbye" _before_ these subsequent contentions of yours --
« Reply #377 on: September 27, 2011, 03:37:31 pm » Message ID: 423049
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 27, 2011, 03:37:31 pm:

"Goodbye."
« Reply #381 on: September 27, 2011, 08:55:26 pm » Message ID: 423177
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 27, 2011, 08:55:26 pm:

"Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye."

These posted replies of yours occurred _before_ I commented about not complying with your terrorist demands.

You then replied, showing that the conversation was either not over, or that you wanted the last word.

No, I replied with a speculation that _you_ were one of those people who feel the need to 'get in the last word' by stating who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye".  Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in", at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'.   Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.

Since you decided to reply after the initial goodbye the insinuation that the conversation was over was contradicted so the goodbye proved not necessary.

Rather, since such an "insinuation" was entirely a fabrication in your own mind, (as shown by the text itself, not your unneeded mistranslations of English), there was no contradiction on my part.  On the other hand, your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself.  Why was this a contradiction?  Because if someone says "goodbye" to another and then keeps yammering away, that person's implicit intention is to be exasperating.  It's unclear whether or not you've previously mistaken exasperation for successful debating however, that cheap trick is ineffective with me, (if it were effective, it would've worked days ago).

[SurveyMack10]

 

Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye".  Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in', at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'.   Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.

Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye.

I remain disinterested as to "why" you said it since I'm already aware of what the word means.  There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what "goodbye" actually indicates, however.

I see you are still confused, I will restate it in a different way.

Your own confusion over what the word, "goodbye" means and your failure to 'confuse' me do not mean that I'm the confused one.

Whenever you implied that you would not reorganize your post into a readable form I assumed the conversation was over ...

There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demands.  Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.

I was not expecting another reply from you as you had implied you would not at all rephrase or reorganize into a more effective format and even called this a "terrorist demand."

Again, I "implied" no such thing; I directly and explicitly refused to comply with your demand because your inability to follow a discussion in which you are a primary participant is not my responsibility.  This point was emphasized by exaggerating your repeated demand as a terrorist one, (alluding to a form of coerision you were attempting to use to get me to follow your 'instructions', 'or else').

Notice how this could give me the idea that the conversation was over. That is why I said goodbye.

Once again you've shown that you are unable to follow the course and _sequence_ of the discussion.  Message IDs list the date and time of replies and these show that you posted your "goodbye" _before_ these subsequent contentions of yours --
« Reply #377 on: September 27, 2011, 03:37:31 pm » Message ID: 423049
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 27, 2011, 03:37:31 pm:

"Goodbye."
« Reply #381 on: September 27, 2011, 08:55:26 pm » Message ID: 423177
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 27, 2011, 08:55:26 pm:

"Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye."

These posted replies of yours occurred _before_ I commented about not complying with your terrorist demands.

You then replied, showing that the conversation was either not over, or that you wanted the last word.

No, I replied with a speculation that _you_ were one of those people who feel the need to 'get in the last word' by stating who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye".  Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in", at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'.   Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.

Since you decided to reply after the initial goodbye the insinuation that the conversation was over was contradicted so the goodbye proved not necessary.

Rather, since such an "insinuation" was entirely a fabrication in your own mind, (as shown by the text itself, not your unneeded mistranslations of English), there was no contradiction on my part.  On the other hand, your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself.  Why was this a contradiction?  Because if someone says "goodbye" to another and then keeps yammering away, that person's implicit intention is to be exasperating.  It's unclear whether or not you've previously mistaken exasperation for successful debating however, that cheap trick is ineffective with me, (if it were effective, it would've worked days ago).

Your insinuation that I do not know what good-bye means has been dismissed. Notice that in my last reply I addressed this topic and you ignored the explanation. I will repeat it to satisfy your confusion. Since you announced that you would not reorganize your post I assumed the conversation was over and was not expecting a response from you- this is why I said goodbye as I thought that would be the ending message. I hope that clears this simple topic up as there aren’t many more ways to explain something that is not at all complicated.
To summarize- You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over. Hence the goodbye.

“There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demand’s.  Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.”

Please show any INVALID assumptions. Since the assumption was that you would not reorganize the post, and you just said that was correct- that shows that the correct term would be VALID assumption.

Your statement that I told you to reorganize “or else” has been dismissed as the petty attack and attempt to evade my request that it is.
Your implication that I cannot follow a conversation has been disregarded as I am not here to get into an insulting match with you. This immature behavior does not help prove your point.

Your continued dwelling on the topic of me saying goodbye shows that you are further trying to avoid the actual debate. (Please see the first few sentences of this post for a lengthy explanation of the posting of said good-bye). I will again summarize here- your admittance that you would not post the information in an organized manner gave off the impression that the conversation was over as I am not going to sift through an entire post and find what was added. Hope that helps clear up your confusion.

Your reply accusing me of wanting to get the last word in was a prime example of your immature attempt at getting in the last word.

Your attempt to compare my insinuation to a fabrication was been disregarded as it is clearly false. A misinterpretation is not equivalent to a lie, especially when you have admitted multiple times to not complying with my request for you to present your information in an organized manner. This would show that the conversation in over as I am not going to dig through your messy post and find what was added.

To help clear up your confusion- the reason I said good-bye is because I was not expecting any further response from you as you made it clear you were not going to reproduce your post in an organized manner. When you DID reply that expectation of the non-response was not met, so the good-bye was no longer needed as you continued the conversation onto more petty points that were being discussed earlier. This should help you understand why the good-bye was posted and why your response deemed in unnecessary.

[falcon9]

Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 12:35:46 pm
Rather, since such an "insinuation" was entirely a fabrication in your own mind, (as shown by the text itself, not your unneeded mistranslations of English), there was no contradiction on my part.  On the other hand, your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself.  Why was this a contradiction?  Because if someone says "goodbye" to another and then keeps yammering away, that person's implicit intention is to be exasperating.  It's unclear whether or not you've previously mistaken exasperation for successful debating however, that cheap trick is ineffective with me, (if it were effective, it would've worked days ago).

Your insinuation that I do not know what good-bye means has been dismissed.

Your attempt to dismiss the example of your documented response, (your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself), is dismissed as being irrational.

Notice that in my last reply I addressed this topic and you ignored the explanation.

Your "explanation" was a weak excuse.  I routinely ignore weak excuses, there's nothing special about ignoring your excuses.

I will repeat it to satisfy your confusion.

This is was was meant by your repeating this 'request' constituting an endless loop, (and then denying that you are repeating it even after using the word "repeat" yourself).  Such self-delusion on your part is non-productive because self-delusion is seldom, (if ever), productive.

Since you announced that you would not reorganize your post I assumed the conversation was over and was not expecting a response from you- this is why I said goodbye as I thought that would be the ending message.

Well, you certainly need look no further than this posted exchange to find examples of your denied repetitious loops.  They are right here, in your own unaltered words and it remains a mystery as to why you are denying what you wrote.  I could speculate however, such speculations would be inconclusive as I am not a mental health diagnostician.

I assumed the conversation was over. Hence the goodbye.

“There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demand’s.  Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.”

Please show any INVALID assumptions.

The invalid assumptions you made were that "You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over" and that my refusal to duplicate recorded posts constituted a lack of evidence.

You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over.

Obviously, (since the conversation continued), this constitutes an invalid assumption on your part.  Your request to provide examples of your making these particular invalid assumptions has been granted.  Your other specious request remains denied.

Your statement that I told you to reorganize “or else” has been dismissed as the petty attack and attempt to evade my request that it is.

You stated that you assumed the conversation was over unless I complied with your demand.  The implied 'or else', (not stated as a quote of yours, hence the ' ' instead of using " "), was that you were terminating the conversation unless your demands were met.  This was why I used a phrase to parallel the situation, metaphorically, (i.e., characterizing your implicit 'or else' as a terrorist demand).

Your implication that I cannot follow a conversation has been disregarded as I am not here to get into an insulting match with you.

It isn't a libelous "insult" if the contention is accurate and it was.  Since you keep insisting that I duplicate posts which you cannot recall, (despite the available record of these threads), then you are either unable to follow this conversation or, you are initiating another of these endless loops you employ to attempt dodging challenges to your specious claims.  Which one is it?  (note: presenting a third option would be specious).

Your reply accusing me of wanting to get the last word in was a prime example of your immature attempt at getting in the last word.

Ironically then, you keep posting in an attempt to get in the last word.  This is not why I keep posting since I'm not the one who said "goodbye" and then proceeded to make the invalid assumption that the conversation was over.  Conclusively, if the conversation _were_ over, you simply cease replying and since you didn't, it wasn't, (this providing conclusive evidence of your invalid assumption in that regard).

Your attempt to compare my insinuation to a fabrication was been disregarded as it is clearly false. A misinterpretation is not equivalent to a lie

I asserted that your "insinuation" was fabricated because your interpretation, (or "misinterpretation" to use your quoted word), was inaccurate - for whatever reasons.  Whether intentionally so, (a lie), or unintentional, (ignorance), was considered irrelavent to your engaging in insinuation.

This would show that the conversation in over as I am not going to dig ...

Again, your decision to end the conversation based on your criteria of being too lazy or busy to do so was yours, (and as it happened, you didn't end the conversation even after assuming it was over.  Why?  Because I responded and your reply directly indicates that the 'last word' theory holds some credence).

[SurveyMack10]

Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 12:35:46 pm
Rather, since such an "insinuation" was entirely a fabrication in your own mind, (as shown by the text itself, not your unneeded mistranslations of English), there was no contradiction on my part.  On the other hand, your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself.  Why was this a contradiction?  Because if someone says "goodbye" to another and then keeps yammering away, that person's implicit intention is to be exasperating.  It's unclear whether or not you've previously mistaken exasperation for successful debating however, that cheap trick is ineffective with me, (if it were effective, it would've worked days ago).

Your insinuation that I do not know what good-bye means has been dismissed.

Your attempt to dismiss the example of your documented response, (your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself), is dismissed as being irrational.

Notice that in my last reply I addressed this topic and you ignored the explanation.

Your "explanation" was a weak excuse.  I routinely ignore weak excuses, there's nothing special about ignoring your excuses.

I will repeat it to satisfy your confusion.

This is was was meant by your repeating this 'request' constituting an endless loop, (and then denying that you are repeating it even after using the word "repeat" yourself).  Such self-delusion on your part is non-productive because self-delusion is seldom, (if ever), productive.

Since you announced that you would not reorganize your post I assumed the conversation was over and was not expecting a response from you- this is why I said goodbye as I thought that would be the ending message.

Well, you certainly need look no further than this posted exchange to find examples of your denied repetitious loops.  They are right here, in your own unaltered words and it remains a mystery as to why you are denying what you wrote.  I could speculate however, such speculations would be inconclusive as I am not a mental health diagnostician.

I assumed the conversation was over. Hence the goodbye.

“There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demand’s.  Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.”

Please show any INVALID assumptions.

The invalid assumptions you made were that "You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over" and that my refusal to duplicate recorded posts constituted a lack of evidence.

You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over.

Obviously, (since the conversation continued), this constitutes an invalid assumption on your part.  Your request to provide examples of your making these particular invalid assumptions has been granted.  Your other specious request remains denied.

Your statement that I told you to reorganize “or else” has been dismissed as the petty attack and attempt to evade my request that it is.

You stated that you assumed the conversation was over unless I complied with your demand.  The implied 'or else', (not stated as a quote of yours, hence the ' ' instead of using " "), was that you were terminating the conversation unless your demands were met.  This was why I used a phrase to parallel the situation, metaphorically, (i.e., characterizing your implicit 'or else' as a terrorist demand).

Your implication that I cannot follow a conversation has been disregarded as I am not here to get into an insulting match with you.

It isn't a libelous "insult" if the contention is accurate and it was.  Since you keep insisting that I duplicate posts which you cannot recall, (despite the available record of these threads), then you are either unable to follow this conversation or, you are initiating another of these endless loops you employ to attempt dodging challenges to your specious claims.  Which one is it?  (note: presenting a third option would be specious).

Your reply accusing me of wanting to get the last word in was a prime example of your immature attempt at getting in the last word.

Ironically then, you keep posting in an attempt to get in the last word.  This is not why I keep posting since I'm not the one who said "goodbye" and then proceeded to make the invalid assumption that the conversation was over.  Conclusively, if the conversation _were_ over, you simply cease replying and since you didn't, it wasn't, (this providing conclusive evidence of your invalid assumption in that regard).

Your attempt to compare my insinuation to a fabrication was been disregarded as it is clearly false. A misinterpretation is not equivalent to a lie

I asserted that your "insinuation" was fabricated because your interpretation, (or "misinterpretation" to use your quoted word), was inaccurate - for whatever reasons.  Whether intentionally so, (a lie), or unintentional, (ignorance), was considered irrelavent to your engaging in insinuation.

This would show that the conversation in over as I am not going to dig ...

Again, your decision to end the conversation based on your criteria of being too lazy or busy to do so was yours, (and as it happened, you didn't end the conversation even after assuming it was over.  Why?  Because I responded and your reply directly indicates that the 'last word' theory holds some credence).

I in fact did not dismiss the questioning of the stated goodbye, but have actually explained it multiple times. Please try to read the following and not ignore it.
-Your statement that you would not reorganize the comment, which in result I would not reply to, gave the impression that the conversation was over. Hence the goodbye.
You characterization as a weak excuse is illogical as I need no excuse for saying “goodbye.”
I did not deny repeating it, but denied that it constitutes an endless loop on my part as you are the one refusing to prove your claim (that there are unanswered challenges).
Your insinuation that I have mental health problems was amusing, thanks for the laugh. You using it as an attempt to sound superior has failed and further lowered your credibility.
Insulting others shows immaturity and lack of intelligence, which lowers you credibility.


Did you post inside the green quoted box? I am not going to attempt to read through it and see if anything was added. If you did post in the box please reply with a simple yes and I will go back and answer any additional comments you made in this unorganized manner.

[RicharnaeH]

 Thats interesting. Why do you believe that God is a fake? What God did u believe in before you changed your mind?
I believe in Jesus.

[mahhum12]

there is no such thing as what type of god you believe in but if u believe or not because there is only one god not any "types of gods" that is just bs. there is only one god