No difference in kids with same-sex, opposite-sex parents: study

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

no bringing people to faith is ok... that is the truth in my opinion...

only you have decided gay parents are ok.... so that is your opinion...

now do you see your bias, now that is the funniest load of illogical bull I have ever seen..


night...laters...

Have to answer before I go.
Even more illogical and even funnier.
Bias?
All I said was its okay to try and attempt to convince someone what is okay.
Dibs said its not okay to try and convince others in what they believe.
That would mean she means also religion.
So you are now contradicting your wife.

No its just you keep trying to change my view because you can't accept other people believe differently you will just keep coming back with more demands and its boring .


If you respected other beliefs, as your wife claims to do, you would respect the right of people who know that homosexuality is normal and natural. You do not and you try to change minds by your beliefs, the pair of you. Hence the contradiction.

I make no such claim. I make no excuse for tying to change peoples minds away from backward bigotry that discriminates against homosexuality. I stand by my convictions in that it is right to change such a poor view help by people. Just as I am sure you feel the same by bringing people into Christianity.
Its shows her post was complete double standards. Wanting people to change for the better is not wrong, just as you surely believe in wanting people to change for the better in your opinion by coming to Christ.

I thin its perfectly acceptable to change perceptions for the good.
So if she does not like the fact I find some views you both have poor, you will both have to live with that. Though do not cry wolf when you do exactly the same. The difference I happily admit to hoping to change minds. I do not lie about it, like the pair of you



Now there is no need to say anymore.
Maybe one day the pair of you will actually meet some homosexuals for real and understand your views were silly. On that I wish you both the best of luck

lol do you think we don't know gays..lol

so you think our right to say gay parents are not right or normal is wrong because you disagree with it..

your opinion is of course right because you say so...

well why didn't you just say that and save us dozens of posts...

Tommy Monk wrote:Just agreeing with HFs very accurate observation...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

wow thank you so much for allowing people like me freedom of speech, the way you called us idiots was so touching, is that part of your belief of the right to free speech and free thought...

Well you either wear blinkers or you are just blind, the incidents of the Christian b&b and the Christian cake shop that all the gays supported them being taken to court and sued clearly says gays should be accepted at all costs...

they are not expressing their beliefs any more they are encroaching on the rights of others... point in case ...see above..

HF, let's not pretend like you haven't called me names. And if we're going to get started on those poor business owners who were forced to accept paying customers' money, we might take a look at how gay people continue to be treated by the religious, all over the world, compare the two and decide which we think is worse

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:


lol do you think we don't know gays..lol

so you think our right to say gay parents are not right or normal is wrong because you disagree with it..

your opinion is of course right because you say so...

well why didn't you just say that and save us dozens of posts...

You guys are acting the EXACT SAME WAY! Are you that stupid that you don't even see it?!

You want to know what I really think? I think you're so ignorant you don't even know you shouldn't try to debate me, because I can shoot down literally any claim you make here on a regular basis. I can show you there's no proof of God, that there is proof of evolution, that the world really is warming and that it's because of fossil fuels ... I can show you that baking soda has never and never will cure cancer ... and I can show you that homosexuality is quite natural and has been observed in the animal kingdom plenty of times, especially in our closest relative species, the other great apes.

If you were just a little bit smarter you might know enough to realize that every time you push your agenda here, you get smacked down and made to look like a fool. But you just keep at it, as though you're going to convince people who are smarter than you that wrong is right.

To borrow Tommy's favorite smiley:

Ben_Reilly wrote:See, I didn't say I could prove there was no God. I can show there's no proof God exists -- different claim.

There is proof of evolution everywhere, particularly in the Lenski experiment that I've mentioned before, but also in basic disease-fighting and protection of crops from pests.

Because animals are gay, it's expected that some people would be gay too -- because people are animals.

The missing link is a red herring, because there's no half-ape half-human -- humans evolved gradually from predecessors that were less ape-like than their predecessors. Every individual is a small link in the chain of evolution.

Homosexuality would only threaten the survival of a species if the majority of individuals were gay. Since that's not the case, homosexuality is not a survival-threatening trait.

My ego when debating you is like the ego of David Beckham playing one-on-one against a 10-year-old. In other words, it's not egotistical for Beckham to know he'd win.

Ben_Reilly wrote:There is no proof that a God exists. There are no scientifically documented miracles; there are studies that show that prayer does not work; there are claims made in the Bible that have been proven to be physically impossible (like pretty much everything about the flood, or how all of humanity is supposed to have sprung from a group of a few dozen people at most); there are problems like how no historian who lived at the same time as Jesus wrote about a zombie uprising in Jerusalem when he was crucified ... the evidence goes on and on.

Adaptation IS evolution. Again, you prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Adaptation over millions of years has given rise to many different species, which still contain very similar genetic coding -- the human genome has been shown to have about 50 percent of its coding in common with the banana tree.

There is no "becoming more" in evolution. We're not more than an animal; we're simply a different kind.

And as far as your last claim ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't claim God doesn't exist -- again, I claim there's no proof he does.

Fossils contain indirect evidence of evolution, but theories aren't owned by the people who came up with them. Far better direct evidence of evolution comes from gene study. But yeah, there are fossils of dinosaurs with feathers and beaks, there are fossils of whales that had feet, there are fossils of reptiles that had fur. There are loads of transitional fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

What do you mean, "where are all the good mutations that changed the species"? They're present in every living thing today! Your (relatively) intelligent brain is the result of a mutation that occurred in one of your distant ancestors, as is your bipedalism, your senses, your immune system, etc. They all accumulated over eons in your ancestral chain to make you who you are.

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

you may think it's funny but I think it is very important for children that they grow up in the right environment and time has proven the best and only natural environment is with the father and mother...

Who are you to dictate what the "right environment" looks like for other people who don't share your beliefs?

The same as you with your  dictating views on Christianity , freedom of speech and all that . It's terrible isn't it when other people's views are different that your own and especially when it is close to your heart .

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't claim God doesn't exist -- again, I claim there's no proof he does.

Fossils contain indirect evidence of evolution, but theories aren't owned by the people who came up with them. Far better direct evidence of evolution comes from gene study. But yeah, there are fossils of dinosaurs with feathers and beaks, there are fossils of whales that had feet, there are fossils of reptiles that had fur. There are loads of transitional fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

What do you mean, "where are all the good mutations that changed the species"? They're present in every living thing today! Your (relatively) intelligent brain is the result of a mutation that occurred in one of your distant ancestors, as is your bipedalism, your senses, your immune system, etc. They all accumulated over eons in your ancestral chain to make you who you are.

so does God exist??

no fossil prove little or nothing, that why other excuses were invented...

how much of the human body could we do without, there are certain, spares if you will but not many in reality...

so everything else had to develop all at once or it the body would have died instantly.. would mutation would have cause such a huge percentage of the human body to develop all at once and all at the same moment..?

Tommy Monk wrote:This is not a thread about the existence or not of God...

Cuchulain wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:This is not a thread about the existence or not of God...

Correct.
It was about your inability to describe normality. To the point you ended up tied up in knots.
So back to the posts you have failed to answer Tommy?
It would in the interest of science that you do. No problem, if you want to bail out of doing that.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't claim God doesn't exist -- again, I claim there's no proof he does.

Fossils contain indirect evidence of evolution, but theories aren't owned by the people who came up with them. Far better direct evidence of evolution comes from gene study. But yeah, there are fossils of dinosaurs with feathers and beaks, there are fossils of whales that had feet, there are fossils of reptiles that had fur. There are loads of transitional fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

What do you mean, "where are all the good mutations that changed the species"? They're present in every living thing today! Your (relatively) intelligent brain is the result of a mutation that occurred in one of your distant ancestors, as is your bipedalism, your senses, your immune system, etc. They all accumulated over eons in your ancestral chain to make you who you are.

so does God exist??

no fossil prove little or nothing, that why other excuses were invented...

how much of the human body could we do without, there are certain, spares if you will but not many in reality...

so everything else had to develop all at once or it the body would have died instantly.. would mutation would have cause such a huge percentage of the human body to develop all at once and all at the same moment..?

mentor wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't claim God doesn't exist -- again, I claim there's no proof he does.

Fossils contain indirect evidence of evolution, but theories aren't owned by the people who came up with them. Far better direct evidence of evolution comes from gene study. But yeah, there are fossils of dinosaurs with feathers and beaks, there are fossils of whales that had feet, there are fossils of reptiles that had fur. There are loads of transitional fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

What do you mean, "where are all the good mutations that changed the species"? They're present in every living thing today! Your (relatively) intelligent brain is the result of a mutation that occurred in one of your distant ancestors, as is your bipedalism, your senses, your immune system, etc. They all accumulated over eons in your ancestral chain to make you who you are.

so does God exist??

no fossil prove little or nothing, that why other excuses were invented...

how much of the human body could we do without, there are certain, spares if you will but not many in reality...

so everything else had to develop all at once or it the body would have died instantly.. would mutation would have cause such a huge percentage of the human body to develop all at once and all at the same moment..?

silence Child. your thinking is muddy and faulty.
you fail to correctly envision the "cosmic all" even in part because of your adherence to a primitive world view, started in the beginnings of your species infancy by a tribal leader in a tent of nomads, followed by the falsely reported doings of a jewish preacher who was just doing his best to keep his people "whole"

Whilst I know you find this difficult to conceive, you are wrong in almost every aspect of your visualisation, and every thought that follows from that is therfor also faulty.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:There is no proof that a God exists. There are no scientifically documented miracles; there are studies that show that prayer does not work; there are claims made in the Bible that have been proven to be physically impossible (like pretty much everything about the flood, or how all of humanity is supposed to have sprung from a group of a few dozen people at most); there are problems like how no historian who lived at the same time as Jesus wrote about a zombie uprising in Jerusalem when he was crucified ... the evidence goes on and on.

Adaptation IS evolution. Again, you prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Adaptation over millions of years has given rise to many different species, which still contain very similar genetic coding -- the human genome has been shown to have about 50 percent of its coding in common with the banana tree.

There is no "becoming more" in evolution. We're not more than an animal; we're simply a different kind.

And as far as your last claim ...

lol when was it decided that if science could not prove it exists it cannot exist...

you claim God does not exist, you cannot prove God does not exist...

but you cling to your chosen religion of evolution.. and trust what others tell you is true..

adaption was quite separate from evolution but they blended to help the cause..

wasn't it darwin that said the fossil record will prove evolution or i was wrong, the fossil record did not prove it..

the idea was that the changes were small over a great period of time, when the transitional fossils failed to appear, the idea of punctuated equilibrium came to the rescue, rapid changes over a short period of time in between long slow changes..

how long was science looking for the elusive missing link, then it became unnecessary..



because the same basic building block for everything came from the same designer, God... that's why we share things in common..

mentor wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

so does God exist??

no fossil prove little or nothing, that why other excuses were invented...

how much of the human body could we do without, there are certain, spares if you will but not many in reality...

so everything else had to develop all at once or it the body would have died instantly.. would mutation would have cause such a huge percentage of the human body to develop all at once and all at the same moment..?

silence Child. your thinking is muddy and faulty.
you fail to correctly envision the "cosmic all" even in part because of your adherence to a primitive world view, started in the beginnings of your species infancy by a tribal leader in a tent of nomads, followed by the falsely reported doings of a jewish preacher who was just doing his best to keep his people "whole"

Whilst I know you find this difficult to conceive, you are wrong in almost every aspect of your visualisation, and every thought that follows from that is therfor also faulty.

veya_victaous wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

The same as you with your  dictating views on Christianity , freedom of speech and all that . It's terrible isn't it when other people's views are different that your own and especially when it is close to your heart .

HUGE difference
Is we are not denying Christians the right to have Kids or get married.
IF Gays cant have Kids than Christians Shouldn't be allowed to have kids or be legally married either.
       

mentor wrote:So children, what is the problem?

those young folk placed with gay parents do as well as those with straight....quell surprise,
Since it is the QUALITY of parenting, rather than as some fools would suggest, the actual nature of the parents, why the outrage expressed by some, more primitive, members of your species.
 

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

HUGE difference
Is we are not denying Christians the right to have Kids or get married.
IF Gays cant have Kids than Christians Shouldn't be allowed to have kids or be legally married either.
       

that's good of you lol , but my point is Ben and eli and didge don't want faith schools don't want children learning a faith because they are dictators so it is the same . I as a Christian and even if i was not a Christian would still have the belief that homosexuals are not normal and that they shouldn't be bringing up children . It is my belief but it seems freedom to think for myself is not allowed on here .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

HUGE difference
Is we are not denying Christians the right to have Kids or get married.
IF Gays cant have Kids than Christians Shouldn't be allowed to have kids or be legally married either.
       

that's good of you lol , but my point is Ben and eli and didge don't want faith schools don't want children learning a faith because they are dictators so it is the same . I as a Christian and even if i was not a Christian would still have the belief that homosexuals are not normal and that they shouldn't be bringing up children . It is my belief but it seems freedom to think for myself is not allowed on here .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

HUGE difference
Is we are not denying Christians the right to have Kids or get married.
IF Gays cant have Kids than Christians Shouldn't be allowed to have kids or be legally married either.
       

that's good of you lol , but my point is Ben and eli and didge don't want faith schools don't want children learning a faith because they are dictators so it is the same . I as a Christian and even if i was not a Christian would still have the belief that homosexuals are not normal and that they shouldn't be bringing up children . It is my belief but it seems freedom to think for myself is not allowed on here .

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

that's good of you lol , but my point is Ben and eli and didge don't want faith schools don't want children learning a faith because they are dictators so it is the same . I as a Christian and even if i was not a Christian would still have the belief that homosexuals are not normal and that they shouldn't be bringing up children . It is my belief but it seems freedom to think for myself is not allowed on here .

You are confusing different things here (confusion comes easily to you, I understand).

I would 'prefer' children not to have a faith drummed into them by their biased parents- but I don't say we should stop that. By all means take your children to church and tell them about your faith at home. I understand that for you faithheads your 'right' to indoctrinate your child easily outweighs their 'right' to make an educated choice in these matters..

What I object to is only faith schools due to exclusivity, questionable science and lack of diversity in teaching about beliefs overall.

Cuchulain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You are confusing different things here (confusion comes easily to you, I understand).

I would 'prefer' children not to have a faith drummed into them by their biased parents- but I don't say we should stop that. By all means take your children to church and tell them about your faith at home. I understand that for you faithheads your 'right' to indoctrinate your child easily outweighs their 'right' to make an educated choice in these matters..

What I object to is only faith schools due to exclusivity, questionable science and lack of diversity in teaching about beliefs overall.

There is no need for faith schools.
If parents want to raise their children in a faith and take them to places of worship that is up to them and good luck to them
Religion should be taught as a subject in school so children can learn about all faiths.
If there was a proposal for a LGBT only school. Then I would object to this too as we both did already on the LGBT school for Manchester, but then I bet they did not know this.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7511-school-for-lgbt-pupils-planned-for-manchester?highlight=lgbt+school

Cuchulain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You are confusing different things here (confusion comes easily to you, I understand).

I would 'prefer' children not to have a faith drummed into them by their biased parents- but I don't say we should stop that. By all means take your children to church and tell them about your faith at home. I understand that for you faithheads your 'right' to indoctrinate your child easily outweighs their 'right' to make an educated choice in these matters..

What I object to is only faith schools due to exclusivity, questionable science and lack of diversity in teaching about beliefs overall.

There is no need for faith schools.
If parents want to raise their children in a faith and take them to places of worship that is up to them and good luck to them
Religion should be taught as a subject in school so children can learn about all faiths.
If there was a proposal for a LGBT only school. Then I would object to this too as we both did already on the LGBT school for Manchester, but then I bet they did not know this.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7511-school-for-lgbt-pupils-planned-for-manchester?highlight=lgbt+school

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

There is no need for faith schools.
If parents want to raise their children in a faith and take them to places of worship that is up to them and good luck to them
Religion should be taught as a subject in school so children can learn about all faiths.
If there was a proposal for a LGBT only school. Then I would object to this too as we both did already on the LGBT school for Manchester, but then I bet they did not know this.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7511-school-for-lgbt-pupils-planned-for-manchester?highlight=lgbt+school

why is there no need for faith schools , why shouldn't kids be taught about faith, some that do not have a faith at home may want to learn..

But of course that doesn't fit in to your gay agenda does it... because you don't agree it should not happen..

nazi, heterophobic, christianophobic bigot that you are...

Cuchulain wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

why is there no need for faith schools , why shouldn't kids be taught about faith, some that do not have a faith at home may want to learn..

But of course that doesn't fit in to your gay agenda does it... because you don't agree it should not happen..

nazi, heterophobic, christianophobic bigot that you are...

You really cannot read can you?
I stated kids should be taught about all faiths as a subject.
So again you just come out with views not even stated to you.
Again all schools should be secular and thus unbiased for all people of all faiths and non-faiths

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You really cannot read can you?
I stated kids should be taught about all faiths as a subject.
So again you just come out with views not even stated to you.
Again all schools should be secular and thus unbiased for all people of all faiths and non-faiths

my apologies I did miss the second part of your reply/....
why should a subject be taught by someone who does not even believe in the subject in a secular enviroment?

why should a Christian school have to teach about islam, would you expect the same from an islamic school..

why should schools be secular, we now have many academies that have specialist subjects so why shouldn't a faith school exist in the same way....?

Cuchulain wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

my apologies I did miss the second part of your reply/....
why should a subject be taught by someone who does not even believe in the subject in a secular enviroment?

why should a Christian school have to teach about islam, would you expect the same from an islamic school..

why should schools be secular, we now have many academies that have specialist subjects so why shouldn't a faith school exist in the same way....?

Question 1) never claimed who should teach the subject.

Question 2) Yes I would expect any school to teach about all religions, as religion is a subject

Question 3) For the reasons of question 2. It should be a subject noyt a school run by a faith where as seen they are biased and create segregation

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Question 1) never claimed who should teach the subject.

Question 2) Yes I would expect any school to teach about all religions, as religion is a subject

Question 3) For the reasons of question 2. It should be a subject noyt a school run by a faith where as seen they are biased and create segregation

you said all faiths should be taught which would me non believers teach the subject...

and you think an islamic school would teach about Christianity, other than kill them all of course...

so do you think evolution or certain sciences should not be taught because of their bias, perhaps some parts of history should not be taught because of their bias...

korban dallas wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

that's good of you lol , but my point is Ben and eli and didge don't want faith schools don't want children learning a faith because they are dictators so it is the same . I as a Christian and even if i was not a Christian would still have the belief that homosexuals are not normal and that they shouldn't be bringing up children . It is my belief but it seems freedom to think for myself is not allowed on here .

Why do you post endless religious threads then cry like  a fucking child when they get debated What you lack in intelligence,  you more than make up for in stupidity.
if you don`t want to discuss your religion stop posting religious threads.honestly you pair never open your mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

that's good of you lol , but my point is Ben and eli and didge don't want faith schools don't want children learning a faith because they are dictators so it is the same . I as a Christian and even if i was not a Christian would still have the belief that homosexuals are not normal and that they shouldn't be bringing up children . It is my belief but it seems freedom to think for myself is not allowed on here .

You are confusing different things here (confusion comes easily to you, I understand).

I would 'prefer' children not to have a faith drummed into them by their biased parents- but I don't say we should stop that. By all means take your children to church and tell them about your faith at home. I understand that for you faithheads your 'right' to indoctrinate your child easily outweighs their 'right' to make an educated choice in these matters..

What I object to is only faith schools due to exclusivity, questionable science and lack of diversity in teaching about beliefs overall.

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You are confusing different things here (confusion comes easily to you, I understand).

I would 'prefer' children not to have a faith drummed into them by their biased parents- but I don't say we should stop that. By all means take your children to church and tell them about your faith at home. I understand that for you faithheads your 'right' to indoctrinate your child easily outweighs their 'right' to make an educated choice in these matters..

What I object to is only faith schools due to exclusivity, questionable science and lack of diversity in teaching about beliefs overall.

bigotry comes easily to you , why should children have homosexuality taught them in schools why not let them have a healthy childhood without confusing them with the idea that some people get possessed by demons and become an abomination to God ?

I object to homosexuality being taught in schools , leave children alone they are innocent until this filth is introduced to them .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You are confusing different things here (confusion comes easily to you, I understand).

I would 'prefer' children not to have a faith drummed into them by their biased parents- but I don't say we should stop that. By all means take your children to church and tell them about your faith at home. I understand that for you faithheads your 'right' to indoctrinate your child easily outweighs their 'right' to make an educated choice in these matters..

What I object to is only faith schools due to exclusivity, questionable science and lack of diversity in teaching about beliefs overall.

bigotry comes easily to you , why should children have homosexuality taught them in schools why not let them have a healthy childhood without confusing them with the idea that some people get possessed by demons and become an abomination to God ?

I object to homosexuality being taught in schools , leave children alone they are innocent until this filth is introduced to them .

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

bigotry comes easily to you , why should children have homosexuality taught them in schools why not let them have a healthy childhood without confusing them with the idea that some people get possessed by demons and become an abomination to God ?

I object to homosexuality being taught in schools , leave children alone they are innocent until this filth is introduced to them .

Homosexuality is not 'taught' to students. They are informed about the existence of homosexuality and that its ok.

I think Christianity (and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc) SHOULD be taught about in schools, with equal treatment given to all of them (ie: not brainwashing into thinking only one is correct).

You see, you are showing how easily confused you are again (and crazy, only crazy people actually believe in demons).

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

mentor wrote:



silence Child. your thinking is muddy and faulty.
you fail to correctly envision the "cosmic all" even in part because of your adherence to a primitive world view, started in the beginnings of your species infancy by a tribal leader in a tent of nomads, followed by the falsely reported doings of a jewish preacher who was just doing his best to keep his people "whole"

Whilst I know you find this difficult to conceive, you are wrong in almost every aspect of your visualisation, and every thought that follows from that is therfor also faulty.

silence silence you cannot force people to change their minds on something they believe . You're just so rude like the rest of the bigots on here but go ahead now throw some rude remarks back at me for daring to show you're a bigot and Christiaphobe

mentor wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

silence silence you cannot force people to change their minds on something they believe . You're just so rude like the rest of the bigots on here but go ahead now throw some rude remarks back at me for daring to show you're a bigot and Christiaphobe

You showed nothing....In your childishness and lack of intellectual capacity, all you can do is sit on the roundabout mumbling the same old, tired circular arguments...
You have such a paucity of intellect that you cannot even understand the concept of "you are perfectly entitled to your so called "faith" until (and ONLY until) your faith rubs up against someone elses perfectly valid rights. At that point you are no longer "entitled" to continue..
You are of course totally entitled to continue to act as you do, but from the point that your faith becomes a poison for others, then tghose of sufficient ability are perfectly entitled to put you in your place..

you are weak and pathetic. Instead of being able to defend your faith in a proper and logical debate you instantly cry "victim" and run away sobbing.
IF your rapidly disintegrating "fait" had any validity or REAL existance...you could prove it, since any mind of even the most moderate ability could construct and sustain a sufficient argument, with its attendant proof, to convince the skeptical....You cannot, therfore what you say is clearly false and the resut of imature and inadequate thinking.