Do you believe in God?

[Tic Tach]

I just reported your post Tic Tach. Again, it is enlightening how you post and what you post.

If you are offended, then you are offended by the content of the bible. You know that old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, well I thought that these images might simply demonstrate that the bible is anything but "pure brilliance" as was claimed by pjs123456789 above. I'm glad that you are disgusted by the bible too, as am I.

You are blinded by your hate towards religion and you lose all decency and respect for others.

Not true. You know that's not true.

Do you not know atrocities were also commited against religious people BECAUSE of their religion? And by people that didn't have one? Are you ignorant?

No, I'm not, I oppose those forms of violence too; like any rational peace loving person. Pat Condell too.

And TELL ME, IS THAT A PICTURE OF A MAN EATING A BABY I SEE UP THERE????? ARE YOU CRAZY?????? MENTAL????

Read your bible.

You are not worthy of being debated. You surely crossed a line I would never dream existed.

You anger is misguided. Be angry that the bible is revered by so many.

 

[Tic Tach]

Tic Tach, I'm as atheist as the next guy, but don't you think you're going overboard?

No, I don't. I think that anyone stating that the bible is "pure brilliance" ought to be called out, and I feel that those images do that. That's all.

added: Why do you consider it overboard?

 

[Grand Prix]

Duuuudes, take a chill pill. No need for either side to get nasty. Just agree to disagree and move on. Some open-mindedness and respect of others' opinions is needed in a discussion such as this.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Tic Tac seems to be taking form as an extremist, even for us who don't believe in religion or the way they see things we wouldn't go this far to prove one person wrong. If you want to prove him wrong then there is a private message option. For someone who has been around this long, I'd think you would know that but I guess you may have ignored that to push this on us all. You're bringing emotion to a debate and for someone that talks science I'm quite surprised you would do that.

EDIT: Actually looking at your post from several pages back I'm not so surprised anymore.

 

[niky]

If you are offended, then you are offended by the content of the bible. You know that old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, well I thought that these images might simply demonstrate that the bible is anything but "pure brilliance" as was claimed by pjs123456789 above. I'm glad that you are disgusted by the bible too, as am I.

You don't like the Bible. Hallelujah, we get it. But that's not just a bit too much. That's completely out of line. (And I'm a non-believer)

If you can't debate your point without posting images which are clearly prohibited by the terms of use of GTPlanet, then I suggest you don't debate.

https://www.gtplanet.net/aup/

You will not post or link to content that is obscene or sexually oriented.

You agreed to the above when you signed up for GTP. Given that this is a board about a video game which is rated for kids of 3 and up... you are expected to not post material that may offend a kindergartener's sensibilities... or, as in this case... give them gibbering nightmares.

 

[Joel]

No, I don't. I think that anyone stating that the bible is "pure brilliance" ought to be called out, and I feel that those images do that. That's all.

added: Why do you consider it overboard?

I consider it overboard in the sense that if you're attempting to get someone who is entrenched in their (religious) views to warm up to yours, it's probably best to have some tact, present yourself well, and more like them. It's like when there's rallies for gun control, and people show up with guns in sight to demonstrate their rights. Technically, they've (and you've) done nothing wrong, but it doesn't present well to someone who's already inclined to disagree with you.

I'm just trying to help combat the idea that atheists are mean crotchety people who spend all their time thinking about how much God doesn't exist. I find when I tell people I'm atheist, some are taken aback, because they find it odd how I, a normal, well adjusted guy could be an atheist (keep in mind I live in a small, rural, conservative farming community and most think atheists are bad news).

While you and I may find some meaning in those pictures you posted, however grotesque they are, it isn't people like me you're trying to get to consider atheism, because it's already the way I view the idea of a supernatural being. There's also that the pictures you posted are inappropriate for a family friendly website, but the principle is the most important thing.


EDIT: I see Niky took care of it.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I was assuming from the thread title that you would just answer yes or no and justify that with reasoning. I don't think you're supposed to attack other people beliefs. People have the right to believe or not believe in god/or gods or support a certain religion. Part of the reason Atheist's get a bad rep is because of the few extremists who go out of their way to make people change what they believe. If a person believes in Christianity, they have every right to. If a person believes is Muslim, then they have every right to follow their faith. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I go to every home around me and change peoples beliefs. I'd be a fool to. Like Noob616, I live in a small rural community full of conservative-thinking people. Atheists aren't really liked around here. Atheists are a minority here, as that is the case I must accept that I have to respect the majoritys beliefs. And the majority must accept that a minority of the peoples beliefs are different too. In that sense, we can coexist.

 

[PeterJB]

I was assuming from the thread title that you would just answer yes or no and justify that with reasoning. I don't think you're supposed to attack other people beliefs. People have the right to believe or not believe in god/or gods or support a certain religion. Part of the reason Atheist's get a bad rep is because of the few extremists who go out of their way to make people change what they believe. If a person believes in Christianity, they have every right to. If a person believes is Muslim, then they have every right to follow their faith. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I go to every home around me and change peoples beliefs. I'd be a fool to. Like Noob616, I live in a small rural community full of conservative-thinking people. Atheists aren't really liked around here. Atheists are a minority here, as that is the case I must accept that I have to respect the majoritys beliefs. And the majority must accept that a minority of the peoples beliefs are different too. In that sense, we can coexist.

Amen to that!

 

[DK]

And the teachings are pure brilliance.

Teachings like these?

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.



Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Do you approve of mass murder and mass rape?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Do you approve of sexual slavery?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Do you approve of violence against slaves?

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

Do you approve of violence against slaves when they are not aware of their mistakes?

Go ahead, tell me that I'm taking them "out of context". After all, religious conservatives do the same when trying to discredit anything scientific.

Just for the record, I think that people should be allowed to have a personal religion, but I don't think that they should ram it down my throat. I may have a slight antipathy towards organised religion, but considering that the Catholic Church turned Ireland into a theocracy until around the 80s, maybe you would understand.

 

[arora]

Go ahead, tell me that I'm taking them "out of context". After all, religious conservatives do the same when trying to discredit anything scientific.

But mommy, he hit me first

On a more serious note, how does arguing against the bible disprove the existence a higher being?

 

[homeforsummer]

A key word, "almost". In science, "almost" doesn't cut it.

Odds and numbers are irrelevant in this situation. What we know is. (We just haven't got it all down yet)

You do understand the concept of odds, don't you?...

 

[Tic Tach]

Interesting some of the reactions. I fully agree to adhere to the rules of the forum. However, you must agree that those images were simply to illustrate the true and actual obscenity of the comment made by the other person who said that the bible was "pure brilliance". That, my friends, is obscene and I find it utterly offensive to call a book that contains such horrific material "pure brilliance", and I'm merely calling it out in a graphic manner which works.

Note that it was not my comments that were explicit or obscene, but rather the words of the bible itself.

It's interesting that when provided with a simple illustration of what the bible actually says in places, some of you squalk like a traumatized chicken, but when someone refers to that content as "pure brilliance", you're all staring at the floor in silence. Why is that?
“The Good Book?” - that's one of the most remarkable euphemisms ever coined.



As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the word of god. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book. (Thomas Paine)


Much of the Bible or the Quran is just life-destroying gibberish, and we just have to acknowledge this and cease to take these books seriously. (Sam Harris)


I actually made the conscious choice to not include two other images which I felt were too gross, so hey, I exercised a little restraint.

And pleeeeease stop with the bankrupt comments about a person's "right" to believe whatever they want; I've already clarified that I agree with that! This isn't about rights, it's about responsibility, honesty, and discussion.



Onwards & upwards.

 

[Joey D]

I'm just trying to help combat the idea that atheists are mean crotchety people who spend all their time thinking about how much God doesn't exist.

I think this is how most people view atheist's and, as I've said, is the main reason why I started to investigate how I actually believe.

You also have to remember atheist's are among the most hated and untrusted groups in America, so there is quite a fight ahead to build acceptance among others. By acting with a vast superiority complex and telling people they are baby eating savages because they believe in God it only perpetuates the hate. in order to gain acceptance you need to present yourself as an open minded person who is willing to accept others. Only by doing this people will begin to listen to your message.

Quite a few religious people are viewed as do gooders who are helping the under served, the hungry, the sick, the weak, the whatever. So it will be hard to break the perception that these people are somehow evil (which I don't think they are at all).

It all comes down to the golden rule of treat others how you wish to be treated, if you treat religious people with an open mind and a listening ear, they may in return treat you with the same open mind and listening ear.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Jay.]

Interesting some of the reactions. I fully agree to adhere to the rules of the forum. However, you must agree that those images were simply to illustrate the true and actual obscenity of the comment made by the other person who said that the bible was "pure brilliance". That, my friends, is obscene and I find it utterly offensive to call a book that contains such horrific material "pure brilliance", and I'm merely calling it out in a graphic manner which works. Note that it was not my comments that were explicit or obscene, but rather the words of the bible itself.

It's interesting that when provided with a simple illustration of what the bible actually says in places, some of you squalk like a traumatized chicken, but when someone refers to that content as "pure brilliance", you're all staring at the floor in silence. Why is that?
“The Good Book?” - that's one of the most remarkable euphemisms ever coined.



As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the word of god. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book. (Thomas Paine)


Much of the Bible or the Quran is just life-destroying gibberish, and we just have to acknowledge this and cease to take these books seriously. (Sam Harris)


I actually made the conscious choice to not include two other images which I felt were too gross, so hey, I exercised a little restraint.

And pleeeeease stop with the bankrupt comments about a person's "right" to believe whatever they want; I've already clarified that I agree with that! This isn't about rights, it's about responsibility, honesty, and discussion.



Onwards & upwards.

How about decency and courtesy?

Bible = Pure Brilliance.
Ok, so that's not your belief. It's not mine either, but I don't get offended by it and start crying.
You express yourself as some kind of believer but you find the bible offensive?

You try to 'preach' your ideas and beliefs to the rest of us, who are quite happy as we are,
we say no thanks and you insult us by saying some believers/thinkers are wrong. Then ridicule peoples opinions.
They are not wrong. They are just different to yourself. All you seem to show is hatred.

And I believe you are only a part of this forum to rouse and anger people because of your hatred.
With 99.9% of your posts, going back to last year, ALL being in this thread I also believe you have no interest in Gran Turismo.
It seems to me that you're in the wrong place. Maybe you should find a different forum/website.

In order to gain acceptance you need to present yourself as an open minded person who is willing to accept others. Only by doing this people will begin to listen to your message.

@ Tic Tach - Please read and take note. ^^ Hatred solves nothing. It CAUSES problems.

@ Joey - I fully agree with your post bud. 👍

 

[Tic Tach]

Bible = Pure Brilliance.
Ok, so that's not your belief. It's not mine either, but I don't get offended by it and start crying.

So now I/we must be and react just as you are and how you see things? Why are you the benchmark for what is the appropriate reaction? Do you see how that's nothing more than the muzzling of one person's voice, viewpoint, opinion and style?

I guess it was that one comment (about the bible being pure brilliance) that really did hit a nerve for me. The fact that one can even make such a comment really concerns me about humanity's future. Can one's mind really be in that much of an "off" position? If so, I'm scared. But maybe I just care about what we refer to and use as our moral compass more than you do while you sit in the comfort of your silence and political correctness; I don't know, but please don't attempt to demonize me because I'm more vocal or if I call a spade a spade.

With 99.9% of your posts, going back to last year, ALL being in this thread I also believe you have no interest in Gran Turismo.

Now you're going off on a tangent. My interest in or time spent playing GT has no bearing on this conversation. It's true that I'm not a hard-core gamer, and especially don't spend much time with it in the summer months, but please don't suggest that one needs or "ought to" also discuss GT related issues to be involved in discussion here, no matter where the percentages lay.

 

[Touring Mars]

While I would generally agree with Joey's sentiment that you often need to take a softer approach when trying to convince someone else to change their opinion, I don't think it really applies when you simply want to challenge someone over their views. If someone's opinion is indefensible, the gentle touch is kind of redundant. Comments like some of those highlighted by Tic Tach are indefensible, and yet so many people won't hear a word against them. It is perfectly justifiable to be upset or annoyed by apologists who would rather you didn't point that stuff out. That said, there are limits to what we can and cannot accept at GTP, being a family forum and all - but expression of one's opinion, no matter how forcefully, is OK - so long as the AUP is respected at the same time.

 

[mr_geez]

@Tic Tach

Is it a way for you to earn few bucks? You know like every time you post a quote , link to an internet bookstore or youtube channel?

And what has any quote from famous mathematician or physicist to do with discussion here? Even more so videos that have clear agenda behind them.

Also I find it very interesting, since you know the bible so well, that through all your readings it didn't occur to you that maybe you shouldn't read it all literally. That maybe there are some things open to interpretation. Especially since it's been "a while" when the bible was written.

Anyway I have to applaud your persistence (it is what? over 12 months of you trying to convert believers into non-believers..on internet forum..about Gran Turismo franchise?!?!?! lol).

 

[Tic Tach]

While I would generally agree with Joey's sentiment that you often need to take a softer approach when trying to convince someone else to change their opinion, I don't think it really applies when you simply want to challenge someone over their views. If someone's opinion is indefensible, the gentle touch is kind of redundant.

And I have found that using the kinder, gentler approach makes no difference to the reception. Even when the wild, baseless assertions are debunked & decapitated over & over, they just keep coming back with the same old nonsense like one of those punching dolls I mentioned earlier.

So while my approach might make some wince, I believe that it is at times appropriate. Here, I think Pat says it best in this short video.

 

[Hun200kmh]

While I would generally agree with Joey's sentiment that you often need to take a softer approach when trying to convince someone else to change their opinion, I don't think it really applies when you simply want to challenge someone over their views. If someone's opinion is indefensible, the gentle touch is kind of redundant. Comments like some of those highlighted by Tic Tach are indefensible, and yet so many people won't hear a word against them. It is perfectly justifiable to be upset or annoyed by apologists who would rather you didn't point that stuff out. That said, there are limits to what we can and cannot accept at GTP, being a family forum and all - but expression of one's opinion, no matter how forcefully, is OK - so long as the AUP is respected at the same time.

TM, I guess you have access to the images that the resident preacher for atheism posted. One of them is probably one of the most evil pictures I ever saw in my entire life. And, mind you, I'm 46 years old, so my entire life is not that small.

There's simply no excuse for the despicable act that happened here last night. And beware, the logic of getting your point across through extreme violence isn't new. When people lose it, they lose it in small and big things.

And I will say it again, this time with no caps, no bolds, as casually as it was posted, because I don't want anyone to have any doubts that I was not delirious. This guy published, among other scenes of horror, a picture of ...


... a man eating a dead baby. Sitting at a table. The baby was placed on the table. And the man had a glass of orange juice by the corpse. Just like that.



I never saw anything as violent in my life. And trying to say that this is what a "the bible is brilliant" post requires as answer is argumentative lunacy.

 

[Tic Tach]

One of them is probably one of the most evil pictures I ever saw in my entire life

Ever heard of Photoshop? That's likely how it was created.

In any event, you have no problem with the idea or action if it's in print, but blow a gasket if you see a picture of it. That, my friend, is very strange.

 

[Touring Mars]

TM, I guess you have access to the images that the resident preacher for atheism posted. One of them is probably one of the most evil pictures I ever saw in my entire life. And, mind you, I'm 46 years old, so my entire life is not that small.

There's simply no excuse for the despicable act that happened here last night. And beware, the logic of getting your point across through extreme violence isn't new. When people lose it, they lose it in small and big things.

And I will say it again, this time with no caps, no bolds, as casually as it was posted, because I don't want anyone to have any doubts that I was not delirious. This guy published, among other scenes of horror, a picture of ...


... a man eating a dead baby. Sitting at a table. The baby was placed on the table. And the man had a glass of orange juice by the corpse. Just like that.



I never saw anything as violent in my life. And trying to say that this is what a "the bible is brilliant" post requires as answer is argumentative lunacy.

I can indeed still see the post, hence why I was able to comment on it... and you're quite right about the pictures being unacceptable - but that is why they were taken down. The image of the dead baby was way beyond what is acceptable at GTP, no matter what the justification or context of the debate. In addition, I personally think that the use of that particular image was not justified anyway, given that the caption is arguably being grossly misinterpreted and taken out of context, but that is pretty much beside the point.

A few (and only a few) of the quotes posted really are indefensible, but many of them were dubious insomuch as the verse quoted differs quite markedly from most versions of the Bible - for example, one quote said something like "If a women gets involved in a fight between two men, her hand will be cut off. Show her no mercy."... not only was the picture deliberately shocking, but the quote itself was highly suspect, with no modern translation of the Bible saying anything like this. But, there were a few that really are pretty dodgy - like those referring to stoning people, or killing promiscuous women. These could easily have done without the shock pictures to go with them, though... I think the (genuine) quotes speak for themselves.

So, yes - you are right - they were uncalled for, and that's why they were removed. And indeed, several of them didn't even support the point being made, through deliberate exaggeration, or selective use of controversial phrases and words. But, a few of the actual quotes atleast did support the view that some parts of the Bible are clearly beyond the pale and cannot be rightly defended, and therefore rightly deserve to be called out in no uncertain terms.

 

[Sam48]

You do understand the concept of odds, don't you?...

I do understand them. However, as I already stated, they do not matter anyway.

 

[homeforsummer]

I do understand them. However, as I already stated, they do not matter anyway.

Well no, they don't matter in relation to the concept of whether God exists or not (which is why I've tried to curtail my input on the topic), but when determining whether there's life beyond our own in the universe then they do matter, because the odds of life existing elsewhere are so high. It doesn't cut it saying that even with high odds life doesn't exist elsewhere, because that defeats the concept of odds.

 

[Sam48]

Well no, they don't matter in relation to the concept of whether God exists or not (which is why I've tried to curtail my input on the topic),

I wasn't even referring to that anyway. I was referring to what I quoted you on below.

...but when determining whether there's life beyond our own in the universe then they do matter, because the odds of life existing elsewhere are so high.

I already described to you why you are wrong in saying that they are high (Or even low for that matter), and why we can't yet place a number on this.

It doesn't cut it saying that even with high odds life doesn't exist elsewhere, because that defeats the concept of odds.

There are no odds, just opinions.

 

[homeforsummer]

I already described to you why you are wrong in saying that they are high (Or even low for that matter), and why we can't yet place a number on this.

You can place a number on anything. I've been over this several times. We already know the odds of life in the universe are 1 - we are the proof that life is possible. It's not like there's absolutely zero chance of life but by some miracle we popped into existence. We're the evidence that under the right conditions, life happens.

We already know the conditions for life are abundant in the universe - the conditions for some forms of life can even be found in our own solar system, since there's plenty of water on other bodies.

I'd like to see where you described to me that I was "wrong", because I've so far seen nothing to suggest that either mine or Danoff's interpretation of the odds are in any way incorrect.

Like anything, scientific consensus is based on research. Astronomers already know of extrasolar planets that contain elements like oxygen in their atmospheres, or CO2 - more elements that supply potential for life.

And if I must bring it up again, based on the best research we have, there are potentially as many as 100 quintillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets capable of sustaining basic life in the observable universe.

The odds of there not being life elsewhere are so slim as for it to be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. What odds would you like to put on there not being life on one out of those 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets?

There are no odds, just opinions.

There are odds for everything. I'm not expressing opinion, I'm repeating odds based on statistical probability. I'm failing to see how that concept is so hard to grasp.

I'm also failing to see why you keep returning to it since it has increasingly little to do with whether God exists or not. That ark sailed long ago.

 

[Sam48]

You can place a number on anything.

Sure, but that number is your opinion in this situation.

I've been over this several times. We already know the odds of life in the universe are 1 - we are the proof that life is possible. It's not like there's absolutely zero chance of life but by some miracle we popped into existence. We're the evidence that under the right conditions, life happens.

Yes, but whether we're it, or not, is not yet known. We can't accurately place a number on something we do not fully understand yet.

I'd like to see where you described to me that I was "wrong", because I've so far seen nothing to suggest that either mine or Danoff's interpretation of the odds are in any way incorrect.

From a few pages back:

As far as we know, we are alone in this universe. We do not fully understand (Although we believe we are close) how exactly how life begins on any given planet. And, because this is science, we could be missing anything from some nice soft dirt, to something much less likely and much more complex. Or, for all we know, we may have something wrong to begin with. We just don't know yet.

That being said, we cannot place a number on whether or not there is other life out there until we completely understand how we got here to begin with. Right now, numbers & odds mean nothing.

Like anything, scientific consensus is based on research. Astronomers already know of extrasolar planets that contain elements like oxygen in their atmospheres, or CO2 - more elements that supply potential for life.

This means nothing until we can determine exactly how life begins.

And if I must bring it up again, based on the best research we have, there are potentially as many as 100 quintillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets capable of sustaining basic life in the observable universe.

The odds of there not being life elsewhere are so slim as for it to be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. What odds would you like to put on there not being life on one out of those 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets?

You must stop focusing on odds, as they mean nothing in this situation.

There are odds for everything. I'm not expressing opinion, I'm repeating odds based on statistical probability. I'm failing to see how that concept is so hard to grasp.

It is only opinion until we know how life begins. (We're talking about science)

I'm also failing to see why you keep returning to it since it has increasingly little to do with whether God exists or not. That ark sailed long ago.

You keep responding, don't you? I wouldn't want to ignore you.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I told you guys that Tic Tac seems to be more of a troll than anything else. Yet I was criticized for this, as well as me saying that this guy seems to only have joined GTP for the purpose of this thread alone. Now others are starting to come around...

 

[DK]

^ Actually, from what I recall his first posts were about his driving seat/Logitech steering wheel setup for GT4.

 

[Tic Tach]

I told you guys that Tic Tac seems to be more of a troll than anything else. Yet I was criticized for this, as well as me saying that this guy seems to only have joined GTP for the purpose of this thread alone. Now others are starting to come around...

I've said, and explained how wrong you are on that. But, I guess you will see what you want to see, and believe what you want to believe.

 

[Joey D]

While I would generally agree with Joey's sentiment that you often need to take a softer approach when trying to convince someone else to change their opinion, I don't think it really applies when you simply want to challenge someone over their views. If someone's opinion is indefensible, the gentle touch is kind of redundant. Comments like some of those highlighted by Tic Tach are indefensible, and yet so many people won't hear a word against them. It is perfectly justifiable to be upset or annoyed by apologists who would rather you didn't point that stuff out. That said, there are limits to what we can and cannot accept at GTP, being a family forum and all - but expression of one's opinion, no matter how forcefully, is OK - so long as the AUP is respected at the same time.

I agree that you need to challenge people and you can challenge their beliefs, that is after all what a debate is centred around, but you can do it in a tactful way. Being a close minded jerk isn't going to win over anyone. How can you preach open mindedness if you aren't open minded yourself? I'm open minded with atheism and theism, I'm willing to hear out what both sides have to say and I often find fault with both sides.

By showing that you are willing to listen to the opposing side, even though you disagree, they will be more than likely to be open minded with your viewpoint.