Religious slurs acceptable

There's a thread here called "religious slurs unacceptable"

Which is just another way of saying, let me fuck you up but if you try to fight back, that's unacceptable

Given the fact that religion initiates threats first, it should be completely fine and acceptable to ridicule how stupid, irrational, and damaging it is. If that's uncomfortable to you, then there is something wrong with YOU

You do know Oil is the reason for for alot of wars right. so really it should be fine and acceptable to ridicule how stupid irrational and damaging it is.

Support, provided that all such arguments take place at appropriate locations (AtWar chat is not a good place to discuss sensitive topics).

Kirjoittanut Netre, 15.05.2015 at 08:14

You do know Oil is the reason for for alot of wars right. so really it should be fine and acceptable to ridicule how stupid irrational and damaging it is.

and the most random and irrelevant post of the day goes to

Kirjoittanut Viruslegion, 15.05.2015 at 10:34

Kirjoittanut Netre, 15.05.2015 at 08:14

You do know Oil is the reason for for alot of wars right. so really it should be fine and acceptable to ridicule how stupid irrational and damaging it is.

and the most random and irrelevant post of the day goes to

in fairnes i dont see the piont on the thread so its just irrelavance stacked with more irrelavance

Kirjoittanut Netre, 15.05.2015 at 10:38

Kirjoittanut Viruslegion, 15.05.2015 at 10:34

Kirjoittanut Netre, 15.05.2015 at 08:14

You do know Oil is the reason for for alot of wars right. so really it should be fine and acceptable to ridicule how stupid irrational and damaging it is.

and the most random and irrelevant post of the day goes to

in fairnes i dont see the piont on the thread so its just irrelavance stacked with more irrelavance

fair enough

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 15.05.2015 at 14:59

enough with that bullshit ffs

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 15.05.2015 at 14:59

How religion initiate threats?

Thanks for proving my point.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 04:31

Science support religion.

I respect all your opinions but... I don't see how would anyone think this statement is true......... Since when does science support religion? Science supports itself...

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 06:03

Do research, read Pascal and Newton's work, they wrote about religion beside their scientific work. They were greater minds than you and me both, so i trust them and their research.

Also read about Robert Gentry, modern US scientist.

I will talk about Pascal since it's his work that I know. He was a christian, he believed in god and so on. He wanted to prove that the spontaneous generation was real and he wanted to prove it through a scientific method, since it's the only and true way to prove things. For this aim, he created the famous necked bottle and carried on an experiment. By wanting to give credit to what religion said, he proved religion wrong. Ironic and funny, but a great discovery.

Conclusion: science doesn't support religion, but it proves them wrong. A scientist can be a religious person, personal beliefs should not interfere in ones experiments. Science must be objective, not based on beliefs. Now it's your turn to explain your point. Science can't be related to religion in any way, a religious person repeating the same experiments as a non believer will get the same results.

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 20.05.2015 at 06:51

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 06:03

Do research, read Pascal and Newton's work, they wrote about religion beside their scientific work. They were greater minds than you and me both, so i trust them and their research.

Also read about Robert Gentry, modern US scientist.

I will talk about Pascal since it's his work that I know. He was a christian, he believed in god and so on. He wanted to prove that the spontaneous generation was real and he wanted to prove it through a scientific method, since it's the only and true way to prove things. For this aim, he created the famous necked bottle and carried on an experiment. By wanting to give credit to what religion said, he proved religion wrong. Ironic and funny, but a great discovery.

Conclusion: science doesn't support religion, but it proves them wrong. A scientist can be a religious person, personal beliefs should not interfere in ones experiments. Science must be objective, not based on beliefs. Now it's your turn to explain your point. Science can't be related to religion in any way, a religious person repeating the same experiments as a non believer will get the same results.

You really need to go back and take a look at the picture I posted here

Hello. my name is tito. teach your child religion

Omfg read Tito's post above and that much stupidity in one post ...i just can't believe anyone can be this unintelligent.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Priests and Monks opened first universities and school in Medieval Europe, time called Dark Age where people were ignorant. They enlightened population, their studentds became architects, merchants, bankers, craftsmen. These students pulled Europe out of Dark Age. Thanks to the backwarded monks and priests who preach Religion and bow to God. Thanks to them Europe developed to be 1# today, it is European credit for creating and developing North America, North Asia while South America, South Asia and Africa are using European knowledge and technology.

They taught according to the bible. Yes, they taught greedy and corrupt bankers, unskilled architects (the true architects were romans and greeks), average craftsmen which needed ages to finish 100 items, merchants which didn't believe in a spherical world and which only job is to buy and sell. Yeah, such achievement. The dark ages started because of the church in the first place. Don't you remember what happened after the fall of Rome or what?

Here you have the reason for us to be out of the dark ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
"The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason) is an era from the 1650s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority. It was promoted by philosophes and local thinkers in urban coffee houses, salons, and Masonic lodges. It challenged the authority of institutions that were deeply rooted in society, especially the Catholic Church; there was much talk of ways to reform society with toleration, science and skepticism."

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Doctor Robert Gentry discovered Granite is not producing itself in nature, that mean someone created it before. He discovered Granite have Pollonium in it, Pollonium makes what Granite is. But interesting point is that Pollonium is degrading very rapidly, less than 3 minutes. Yet Granite posses it. If Evolution lasted billion of years, Granite wouldnt have Pollonium and thus it wouldnt be Granite, but some other rock. Bible says God created Earth in one day, therefore in that day Granite was created as well with Pollonium which instantly attached to it and didnt let go thus enriching it to be the most valuable rock on Earth. Arkansas state called dr.Gentry to develop science class in their schools but UCLA lobbied US government to ban that although people of Arkansas wanted to study Science & Religion

First of all, Robert isn't a respected person inside the scientific community for his reasoning is absurd. Second of all, you clearly know nothing about geology nor rocks. Thirdly, you know anything about chemestry as well.

I just read a few documents about it... you clearly haven't done any research on it. I invite you to do the same, that's in case you can even understand anything at all:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Sediment rocks on top of mountains. Need i say more. If evolution is correct, there aint gonna be sediment rocks on mountains, yet there are because of the Great Flood.

- Vertical pressed mountains. How is that possible on long terms. It isnt possible if nature is working slowly as Evolution teach. They are vertically pressed like pancakes because of the Great Flood which made great water pressure on them.

Sure. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_formation

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Dinossaur DNA extracted from dino bones, thats impossible if Dino is older than 10,000 years. But they managed to extract, which mean dinos are younger than 10,000 years and Bible says World is old 5700 years.

Please, I beg you to find the article where it states scientists have extracted such DNA. Read it and then try to discuss about it.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Bible says man was twice as higher and heavier back then than today. And we can see their skeletons in Italy, Middle East, China.

Bible says what? Wee can see what??? Okey, send me the bibliography of such thing cause I can't trust your words at all XD

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Bible says Earth had sea on one place and water above the sky. Which mean Earth had greenhouse effect, there was no storms, climate change, rain, World had forests, plants, animals in abundance. Today we use greenhouse effect to grow plants in winter, clearly you can see how it support life and speed it up.

Can you pls quote something more scientific than the bible??? Really, it's depressing.

Water above the sky.... ofc. Flying around right?? Liquid water flying around the earth just as if gravity didn't afect it at all. Nice physics there. You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about... Besides, having the world completely surrounded by water would involve such huge greenhouse effect it would turn the earth into a desert.

"there was no storms, climate change, rain" --> no rain but we had plants and animals? huh?

Btw, greenhouse effect is just used in little amounts to create microclimates which can be manipulated in order to be able to grow plants in certain territories in which they would naturally not survive. This doesn't apply in world wide scales since the climate changes world wide.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Great Flood was nothing more than God releasing the water above the sky on Earth, when that water collapsed, it flooded the Earth killing 90% of the fauna and flora.

Hm... yeah. Sure.



I think you should read a bit more about all the already finished arguments against it. If you won't listen to them, why would you ever listen to me?

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Doesnt seem like that Marianne passage in Pacific is made so flood can withdraw later? It isnt scientific proved yet, need more years. But just taking a look on the modern world with 3/4 covered with water says alot.

Now you're just allucinating.... why are you stating such thing... really why?

What's up with the number? So what if nearly the 3/4 of the world is covered with water? The reason is quite quite simple, even for you: it's due to the amount of water. That's all.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Chariots and bones found in Red Sea, dating before 3000 years, exactly when Moses and Jews crossed it while Egyptians chased them. Bible is actually a history book, it is simple and interesting, it tells how nations lived 3000 years ago in that time known world. How could possibly Moses write down all that unless God told him? Could he make things up, how much of imagination would he need taking in consideration he was average man 3000 years ago. If it is made up, how 80% of things he wrote happened and can be proved with science?

Okey, share with me the bibliography where it states the finding of those bones and chariots. Also, I hope it states that those were found just where these Moses things happened.

Have you ever heard of drugs? Yeah, I don't mean to be rude but... throughout history many people (including famous philosophers) have fallen to drugs just to say a bunch of crazy things which in their time were "accepted" cause of the huge ignorance that prevailed. And by now you should probably know how powerful a drug can be... and how it may affect one's perception of reality.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- Scientist proved Carbon Dating is wrong as it uses nuclear table of numbers with starting U236 and 236 can never end with U238 after ninth row, which they use to make result how old is some thing.

What? Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Pls, I need bibliography about what you state or else it's just worthless scraps of paper. Btw, what does carbon dating have to be with U236 and U238? Do you know what U236 means? And do you know the relationship between them? For god sake, stop using words you clearly don't understand its meaning. As a chemist, I feel offended.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- C14 is also wrong as C16 cannot transform to C14 in the atmosphere as they told, it is physically impossible.

Okey, pls, share bibliography about this as well since I don't really think you know what you're talking about... at all. Specially since C16 doesn't fucking exist.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 20.05.2015 at 08:21

- There is no life in the Universe except on Planet Earth, we discovered 10 planets, 100 stars and 1,000 comets in space, none have any form of life except Earth. In the future we will continue to explore, but we will discover only empty planets and galaxies without life. Space is vacuum, no sound, no life.

LOL idk if you see the logic to your statement...

"We haven't discovered any bacteria on this first room so we won't find any bacteria on the other infinite rooms either". Do you realize you're talking about something you don't know at all. Even the Pope admitted that there is the possibility for other planets to be inhabited.

"Space is vacuum, no sound, no life" -> nice tryhard. If you wanted to sound smart, avoid using these wanna-be-cool sentences. They make no sense.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 20.05.2015 at 07:45

You really need to go back and take a look at the picture I posted here

You're 100% right... should have listened to those wise words. Sorry.

He clearly is an ignorant in scientific matters...

"Water above the sky"................... as if it wouldn't fly away.......... darn.... waste of time.....

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 20.05.2015 at 10:07

"Space is vacuum, no sound, no life"

Ahahaha Raul best thing ...there are this cute little creatures called "water bears" that can survive, live in space vacuum ...and scientists discovered life can start in deep space!

Look at this motherfucker ...he looks like he came from Mass Effect

Kirjoittanut Goblin, 20.05.2015 at 12:39

Goblin, you don't realize how much you made me fall in love with you!! XD Epic! XD
They look like a vacuum cleaner bag XDD
The bests part of Tito's statement is that he somehow connects space with vacuum (we're in space!! and i dont consider myself to be nothing), and sound with life (as if we being quiet would mean our death).

This one is also interesting: "Also no one mentioned food in the Arc, have you heard for hibernation?" Ever heard of a human or animal hibernating for a whole year? Aparently Tito has!

Dejavu. even the arguments are the same. been there, done that

Kirjoittanut Khal.eesi, 20.05.2015 at 19:29

Dejavu. even the arguments are the same. been there, done that

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 20.05.2015 at 10:36

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 20.05.2015 at 07:45

You really need to go back and take a look at the picture I posted here

You're 100% right... should have listened to those wise words. Sorry.

He clearly is an ignorant in scientific matters...

"Water above the sky"................... as if it wouldn't fly away.......... darn.... waste of time.....

Ok let's just say Christianity is right ect, your saying I should worship someone who killed countless people? lets take Egypt and the plagues, again countless babies die not to mention people as well majority of witch probably had no idea why they where being punished... personally I believe in religion, also believe in the big bang ect though since it's more logical then how the bible explains it, but if events are same as the bible then god is worse then every single criminal on this planet combined, so to take what the bible says as 100% fact is insane

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.05.2015 at 04:29

I said 6 months, not whole year. You deliberately change my words so they can suit your goal.

It happens, you dont have arguments anymore so you start mocking and making jokes, typical for children.

I thought you are more intelligent and mature than that, someone with whom you can talk, but it seems you are sour loser when you cant reply.

Oh sorry. Anyway, mind reminding me how much time can a human spend without water? Or without food?

I'm afraid that in those circumstances those animals would eat each other. 6 months or 1 year, it doesn't make a difference, there's no way those animals could hybernate, specially considering some insects do not even live that long.

On the other hand, if you claim that they hybernated for 6 months, what did they do on the other 6 months before it all dried up magically?

And how is it that plants didn't die because of such a flood? I'm afraid you can't just take the world's forest in a ship.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 21.05.2015 at 02:29

I have a stupid doubt... is this for real? XD

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.05.2015 at 07:01

You have no clue what hibernation is dont you... Bears hybernate for 6 months... it is natural thing. If one species can hybernate why wouldnt others, especially in some situations like that, so they dont eat each other and not starve, they slept for whole time.

Flood didnt make a desert, please, use your brain i beg you... When water withdrew there were plants and land from before, i dont see problem to eat and use that after the flood.

In that case, why don't african people hibernate so that they don't stave? If it were a natural thing, they would, then why don't they? Or why don't you?
Besides, not every single bear hibernates, only polar bears do. And that's not something you can learn from a day to another, it's something your whole body needs to get used to. Our body can't.
The whole time? It took 1 year to dry off. Wtf did they do for the other 6 months left?? A person can't live more than 2-3 days without water and more than 1 month without food!
Okey, tell you what, take some grass, put it inside a little container, fill it with salt water, then let 1 year pass. Then go back and tell me if that grass made it. Use your brain, I beg you!

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.05.2015 at 10:49

Because God isnt touching this planet for 2000 years after he was sacrificed. Thats why it was called 'Era of Mercy' and today it is called Era of Fear which will follow by Era of Death bla bla bla. He is not helping us anymore because he is preparing to invade. And when you invade that mean you are destroying and killing, so why would you help before that, waste of time and effort.

God made animals hibernate on the arc. If he exist, and we know one species can hibernate, that mean its easy to make all animals sleep 6 months. He divided Red Sea for jews and he cant make animals hibernate...

Yeah... I still don't get why he would be so pissed of at getting sacrificed when he's the responsable for all wars and harm done by humanity beforehand that "sacrifice" thing. So much for perfection... and for logic.

Ofc, ofc. Hm... try to sleep for a day and then think of the hunger you'll feel. Sleep for a week and goodbye. No food and no water for a week means your death. Not to mention all the other animals that would share the same fate. Ofc you can make anyone sleep, just give them drugs or anestesics, another factor you should have in mind is their capability of resisting so much time without moving, eating or drinking. Now you're gonna tell me that god gave them invisible food while they were asleep? And once they woke up? They ate air for lunch?

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.05.2015 at 11:26

He wasnt 'pissed of'. God made sacrifice system where you have to pay for return. But sacrifices had to be with animals, not humans, satanists sacrifice humans in their ritual.
Thats why atheists and satanists are using that violence as excuse to show how God is bad and not kind.

Yeah, I'm sure a sacrifice system was the best a supposedly perfect and all benevolent being could think of. Yes, he seems really nice. A truly good, kind and nice person does good things without expecting anything in exchange. What he does can be considered as being a bloody animal killer and quite self-interested.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.05.2015 at 11:26

But now he payed the price - sacrifice has been made which mean God again have right on Earth, and now he is waiting to invade. Thats why he wont come down as messiah but as a conqueror. He wont teach anymore, but kill satanists and protect his people.

So you're saying that the way to regain authority over a land is by sacrificing yourself on that same land by its people? I don't quite get the logic in that.
So a single guy / being will come down from outer space and single handedly kill anyone he thinks is a "satanist"? And I thought you didn't believe in life beyond Earth...

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 21.05.2015 at 12:03

Its impossible to debate creationists ...you can prove your arguments by scientific, logical means, but all they got to do is pull out the "God did it" or if needed "Satan did".

But even when the response is "God did it" ...that's still doesn't justify the stupidity and irrationality of the omnipotent, highly intelligent sentient being.

Kirjoittanut Goblin, 21.05.2015 at 12:37

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 21.05.2015 at 12:03

Its impossible to debate creationists ...you can prove your arguments by scientific, logical means, but all they got to do is pull out the "God did it" or if needed "Satan did".

But even when the response is "God did it" ...that's still doesn't justify the stupidity and irrationality of the omnipotent, highly intelligent sentient being.

I'm sorry... I guess I'm just too stubborn... this guy makes me cry of sadness... not sure if he really is this dumb or what the heck does he call logic... all I can say is that he has recieved some heavily biased education.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.05.2015 at 14:29

God is above 1.

Which one is he ...a microwave or a radio?