.

[??????]

You always have to be right.
You're implying only theists kill people for their beliefs. You claim to know how billions of people think and what they believe. You're anti-religious, biased, and ignorant. However, that is nothing new. All of Boyah knows that.

young man it's not very wise to resort to insulting him 

[Daddy]

You always have to be right.
You're implying only theists kill people for their beliefs. You claim to know how billions of people think and what they believe. You're anti-religious, biased, and ignorant. However, that is nothing new. All of Boyah knows that.

ad hominem again you are a great debater

I do not always have to be right. I just do not argue when I have reasonable doubt which implies that I am incorrect. It's called not being a moron.

I am not implying that only theists kill people for their beliefs.  I am implying that if they had any reasonable doubt concerning those beliefs they would not kill in the name of such beliefs.  As demonstrated every day such is not the case and shows that many people will not doubt the existence of their deity. Conversely, very rarely do you hear of someone killing in the name of atheism since there is no set dogma labeling "the evil ones", "sinners", "enemies".  I am not arguing that religious people are worse and atheists are better; the statement that theists kill in the name of theism is factual and based on thousands of years of history. No fuck justifies a war or crusade on the lack of belief in something. People cite Stalin and such as those who have murdered in the name of atheism. This is also historically incorrect as they targeted churches specifically for the reason that they detracted from the absolute authority of the state.  This happens very frequently whether in a state-imposed atheism or a state run religion.


I am also anti-genocide am I disallowed from arguing the negative effects of genocide now? I am anti-homophobia. Am I unfit to discuss the flaws in homophobia?  I am anti-flat earth. Is my argument in presenting opposing evidence ignorant?

how should i erase a bias? just accept everything some fuck says because their book tells me to?  No, being educated--being intelligent--requires filtering out the shit and requiring evidence before mulling it over.  It does not call for the act of hearing an idea or opinion and supposing it has equal value to pre-existing ones which may have much more research and backing into it.

Speaking of ignorance; how so?  I am very aware of both scientific theory and theology; religious history or scientific discoveries.

I think you are the ignorant fuck relying on ad hominem attacks, miscellanea from the book of logical fallacies, and resistance to the idea of providing evidence and support for an argument.



Every time I argue religion with someone here some dumbass always resorts to the 'lol u so bias and close minded' yet how often do they ever offer fuck fucking piece of evidence to back up what they say?  I provide numbers, stats, dates, people, journals, studies, theories, laws, etc. They provide a passage in a self citing book.


So fuck off with your "hurr durr ignorance" bullshit and learn that, contrary to a satirical thread, not all viewpoints are equal but all should offer evidence to back them up and rejecting such because of a lack of support is not ignorance or close mindedness.


I feel I have to repeat myself incessantly with this shit.

[wawi]

young man it's not very wise to resort to insulting him 

oh no plz dont ban what me ever shall i do

[?????]

I'm reporting Jimmy for flaming

[Thyme]

ad hominem again you are a great debater

I do not always have to be right. I just do not argue when I have reasonable doubt which implies that I am incorrect. It's called not being a moron.

I am not implying that only theists kill people for their beliefs.  I am implying that if they had any reasonable doubt concerning those beliefs they would not kill in the name of such beliefs.  As demonstrated every day such is not the case and shows that many people will not doubt the existence of their deity. Conversely, very rarely do you hear of someone killing in the name of atheism since there is no set dogma labeling "the evil ones", "sinners", "enemies".  I am not arguing that religious people are worse and atheists are better; the statement that theists kill in the name of theism is factual and based on thousands of years of history. No fuck justifies a war or crusade on the lack of belief in something. People cite Stalin and such as those who have murdered in the name of atheism. This is also historically incorrect as they targeted churches specifically for the reason that they detracted from the absolute authority of the state.  This happens very frequently whether in a state-imposed atheism or a state run religion.


I am also anti-genocide am I disallowed from arguing the negative effects of genocide now? I am anti-homophobia. Am I unfit to discuss the flaws in homophobia?  I am anti-flat earth. Is my argument in presenting opposing evidence ignorant?

how should i erase a bias? just accept everything some fuck says because their book tells me to?  No, being educated--being intelligent--requires filtering out the shit and requiring evidence before mulling it over.  It does not call for the act of hearing an idea or opinion and supposing it has equal value to pre-existing ones which may have much more research and backing into it.

Speaking of ignorance; how so?  I am very aware of both scientific theory and theology; religious history or scientific discoveries.

I think you are the ignorant fuck relying on ad hominem attacks, miscellanea from the book of logical fallacies, and resistance to the idea of providing evidence and support for an argument.



Every time I argue religion with someone here some dumbass always resorts to the 'lol u so bias and close minded' yet how often do they ever offer fuck fucking piece of evidence to back up what they say?  I provide numbers, stats, dates, people, journals, studies, theories, laws, etc. They provide a passage in a self citing book.

lol

[spoiler]sorry i had to [/spoiler]

[Daddy]

lol

[spoiler]sorry i had to [/spoiler]

fag homoname

[Nyerp]

u mad?

[Daddy]

u mad?

i dont like idiots lol

[wawi]

lol
completely missing the point of my replies

[Daddy]

good argument nick

[?????]

Why has a mod not replied to my report?!

[wawi]

good argument nick

I'm not arguing anything. You just didn't even take a look at what I was replying to.

[?????]

oh snap it's the after-argument

[Daddy]

Why has a mod not replied to my report?!

becuz it would be too biased and ignorant.

I'm not arguing anything. You just didn't even take a look at what I was replying to.

uh i quoted and replied to it but ok
you can have more ad hominem and throw in a few others if you want because it will make whatever you say that much more compelling

oh snap it's the after-argument

you didnt read what i said you just quoted and replied

[Thyme]

i dont like idiots lol

i personally like to think he meant nick but idk