kyrani99 wrote:Don't worry, I am finished posting on this forum. Especially after this admission to being toxic here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2465551

Hoo boy.

SS, now look what you gone and done!!

kyrani99 wrote:Don't worry, I am finished posting on this forum.

I'll remain skeptical of that given that this will be your third flounce.

Especially after this admission to being toxic here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2465551

Good gravy. Are you really that credulous? That speaks volumes.

Skeptics are people without a position because they see no evidence for some particular issue.

Wrong. Skeptics are people who require evidence and their position on any given subject will be based on said evidence or lack thereof.

Most skeptics that I have met don't agree without the need to be on defensive or feel they have to be right.

Worthless personal anecdote. Given your skewed definition above, I doubt you'd know a skeptic if you met one.

Only a person who is not a skeptic but who holds a particular position is going to be defensive etc.

Probably because they haven't got any evidence for said position. If they did, there would be no need to be defensive, they'd merely present the evidence.

The hate that has been leveled against me by a small number of members, including and possibly more so from shrunk, simply because I have a different opinion based on evidence I see, speaks volumes. And all of it has either been ignored or justified by mods.

That'll be the same Shrunk that you suggested belonged to a group that needed to be 'exterminated' will it? Hypocrisy meters will be going nuclear at this point.
'Evidence' you can see is worthless, given that no one here will be able to differentiate it from delusion or fabrication. You have presented no robust, reproducible evidence for any of your, quite frankly, reprehensible views and ideas. It's those that have been met, unsuprisingly, with animosity here, not you. You are not your ideas.

I've certainly seen no failings from the Mods regarding your tenure here.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:Don't worry, I am finished posting on this forum. Especially after this admission to being toxic here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2465551

Hoo boy.

SS, now look what you gone and done!!

Do I really get to take credit for this? Because I'm completely okay with that.

I think it's safe to say it depends on the religion, but obviously belief is the first and foremost requirement of all religions, otherwise what's the point? But the question is; in the case of belief, is belief alone enough?
For Abrahamic religions I'd say in Christianity generally belief is more important than behaviour, whereas in Judaism and Islam both belief and behaviour are equally important.

Behaviour. Reciting a creed in a church is a ritual. Wearing a head and or face covering or light blue bag.

Saying words.

Everyone is well able to act. Asserting thoughts and beliefs matter is just the religios attempting thought control.

You can always cross your fingers behind your back or be jesuitical.

And repeating behaviours eventually moulds the thoughts and beliefs.