Are you trying to say that cooldawg wasn't chewing out others beliefs? This isn't just directed at you but anyone who is trying to make it seem like Christians are the only ones who are being "chewed out." As it has been said before, he said he had proof the Christian God existed. Then he went on to say that Atheists should just believe in God because their beliefs are, essentially, useless. In this, he disregarded all religions other than Christianity, by saying they should just believe in Christianity and made no mention of any other religions. He was chewing out every belief other than Christianity. This is what cooldawg did, which was doing wrong to non-believers (of Christianity). It merely branched off when some people, (Christian) believers or not, started defending him from others (including Christians) "attacks." Because they explained why they had the reaction they did, the defenders, they felt that they were being "attacked" as well. So it branched.In addition to this, he was not willing to "trust" a poster merely because of how he spelled a word, which showed his character in worse light, causing it to seem even more like he was trying to "attack" non-believers of Christianity. He also decided to choose three religions as being "valid," while disregarding other highly practiced religions like Buddhism, to name one. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with discussions such as these. They are the best way to gain understanding of other views and one's own views. It also teaches one to defend their beliefs (since most things worth discussing deal with belief of what's true) using supporting evidence. It strengthens one's personal beliefs, whether they may have slightly changed or not, and promotes understanding. I commend Thor for standing up for his beliefs. The same cannot entirely be said for cooldawg who, when confronted with things that opposed his beliefs, stayed close-minded and left without trying to understand the views of the other side. Hopefully, he has learned that he needs to be ready to defend his beliefs should they be confronted, because if one isn't willing to defend his beliefs ever, he really needs to look deep down and see if he really believes in them. Is it because he doesn't think he'll be able to defend them since they are flawed, or does he think that he is absolutely right and there is no reason to question his beliefs? Maybe something different? I myself have been in discussions where I was essentially the only one trying to stick up for my ideas (Hunting). While I know that my arguments were poor (and my grammar horrible) when I wrote them, it gave me experience and allowed me to examine my own beliefs more closely. Discussing topics such as this, assuming both parties don't get overemotional, can only do good. It gives understanding, stimulates the mind, and allows one to refine his beliefs and believe in them that much more.