Originally posted by Bardock42
H-how is this subject more silly than the others?Also, it is multiple topics we are arguing about, most of them connected to Islam.
You mean about prophet Mohammed ..we discussed that alot ..😕
I understand what she was trying to say and the mistake was amusing, but your mistake following it, together with it supposed to be nice replies congratulating for particular correctness or portrayed intelligence
LOL ..Thank god someone understand me 💃
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it is unfair to not allow it categorically.
Anyway forget it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If it would.
It does.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Probably not more than if there was no Religion though.
Well at the end of the day religons is not better or worse than atheism. Both have their good and bad points.
Originally posted by Bardock42Isaac Newton was a genius, if he had never had any Religion but access to science, he would have done the same if not more.
How do you know that? What you do know is that he was relgious and it motivated him, to say that he would have learnt more is purely subjective and narrow minded.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Religion was a side effect, not the cause.
All im saying is that religon can be a powerful motivating force to pursue science.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Religion was pointless as is proven by many, many non-religious scientists everywhere.
What did they prove its just subjective.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And again Religion did not help. We are not more advanced because of Religion, if anything we are far behind.
That doesnt make any sense, because the fcat of the matter is this even if you dont belive that religon did not contribute to science, why are there examples of advanced civilizations which were very religous. For example the Islamic world at one point were more advanced then the west.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That makes no sense. Science was in big parts fought by Religion...it is on the verge of winning now, because it actually works and can be seen, unlike Religion. Sure, Religion is still strong, though Science showed us why (conditioning, etc.)
Thats not the fault of religon that is the fault of pig headed people. People just use it as an excuse to suppress other people, thats not the fault of religon thats people. Guns dont kill people, people do. There loads of guns in Canada but gun crime is alot less, get it?
Originally posted by Bardock42
thats like you are being whiny little authoritarian dudes that think they have the right to decide everything for others.
No, I dont care if your gay, bi, hetero. I dont care if you have pre-martial sex, I dont care if you go swinging. I dont care if your transexual. I just think your hypocritical because your too pig headed to see the benefits of religon, you just look at the negative. I dont think relgion is better than atheism, I think they are both just as good as each other. Besides there are many different types of atheism.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Misunderstanding again. You are on a roll. I don't give a shit whether people think you are right or wrong, I argue with facts, you with "But you're bad cry"
Anyway forget it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, if Religion encourages scientific research that I would count for Religion (though they don't Darwin/Gallileo/etc.).
Yes there are examples where it does.
Originally posted by Bardock42
There is a difference between Religion supporting science and someone Religious being a scientist.
Yes I do, that person would be a scientist regardless of wether they are religous or not. At the end of the day there are examples of religon being a motivating force, and advanced civilizations being religous.
To then say that that the person would do better if he was not religous is subjective, especially when there are examples advanced civilizations which were religous if it was a negative force all religous socities would be backward.
Im not saying religon is better im saying it is just as good, but your saying there were better off. It looks to me that im the one who is more open minded.
Answer the question: Why is it when religous people hate gays its religon.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not sure how you don't see the difference. Oh no, nevermind, I know.
I see the difference.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yes, you misunderstood again. Good job.
I understand what she was trying to say and the mistake was amusing, but your mistake following it, together with it supposed to be nice replies congratulating for particular correctness or portrayed intelligence, made it so ironically funny that I am wondering why the universe didn't collapse laughing.
At any rate there are alot of points in this post which I have not misunderstood.
Alright, all of your post is bullshit, which should be evident by now and can be countered by the arguments I gave before, so I will leave it at that.
But, you asked me to specifically answer this one question and I will, though, i can already see that you will not undertstand the answer.
Originally posted by Alfheim
[B]Answer the question: Why is it when religous people hate gays its religon.
[/B]
That is not what I said. If someone religious just hates gays then that could have nothing to do with Religion. Now, in the Bible (old, testament, apparently accepted by Christians as well as Muslims) it says specifically:
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
This supports hate for homosexuals and this is the reason why it is the fault of the Religion. If it didn't say that there would be less hate. If it didn't say that it couldn't be used to justify the hate. This is one of the many bad aspects about Religion (a specific but major one in that casecase)
Oh and just for the record, I am not hypocritical, nor do I not see some of the benefits Religion has brought.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Alright, all of your post is bullshit, which should be evident by now and can be countered by the arguments I gave before, so I will leave it at that.
No not at all not his time. Now you are misunderstanding what im saying to suit you. You said that if Isaac Newton were not relgious he would have done better, therefore you are saying we are better off without religon.
My point is that religon is just as good, giving me examples of athiest scientists does not prove that atheism is better than religon, all it proves is that it is just as good.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is not what I said. If someone religious just hates gays then that could have nothing to do with Religion.
Well I was talking about religon in general not a specific person, so I dont know where that came from.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Now, in the Bible (old, testament, apparently accepted by Christians as well as Muslims) it says specifically:"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
This supports hate for homosexuals and this is the reason why it is the fault of the Religion. If it didn't say that there would be less hate. If it didn't say that it couldn't be used to justify the hate. This is one of the many bad aspects about Religion (a specific but major one in that casecase)
Well so what alot of atrocities were commited in the name of Communism and the Nazis. There was a group in French history who believed that all religous people should be killed. So again that just proves that atheistic points of view can be just as bad.
Originally posted by AlfheimOne of The Nazis main points was Christianity
No not at all not his time. Now you are misunderstanding what im saying to suit you. You said that if Isaac Newton were not relgious he would have done better, therefore you are saying we are better off without religon.My point is that religon is just as good, giving me examples of athiest scientists does not prove that atheism is better than religon, all it proves is that it is just as good.
Well I was talking about religon in general not a specific person, so I dont know where that came from.
Well so what alot of atrocities were commited in the name of Communism and the Nazis. There was a group in French history who believed that all religous people should be killed. So again that just proves that atheistic points of view can be just as bad.
Originally posted by Alfheim
No not at all not his time. Now you are misunderstanding what im saying to suit you. You said that if Isaac Newton were not relgious he would have done better, therefore you are saying we are better off without religon.
No, see you misunderstood again. i said that not Religion was the reason why he was a good scientist. And that Religion did not encourage it. Whether he was better I don't know, I just stated it is very possible, because he wouldn't have had to be afraid what a certain Religion might do to him.
You mistake a side effect for a reason.
Originally posted by Alfheim
My point is that religon is just as good, giving me examples of athiest scientists does not prove that atheism is better than religon, all it proves is that it is just as good.
Which is why I didn't do that. Also, never claimed atheism is better generally. Just that I think people would get along much better if there were no religions nowadays.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well I was talking about religon in general not a specific person, so I dont know where that came from.
You just brought it up for some weird misunderstanding reason....that's where it came from, totally beside the point.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well so what alot of atrocities were commited in the name of Communism and the Nazis. There was a group in French history who believed that all religous people should be killed. So again that just proves that atheistic points of view can be just as bad.
And do we find Communism and the Nazis awesome and do we not think we'd be better off without it?
I have no clue why you are hating on atheists so much, I didn't mention them, I also didn't claim they are better.
Still you are severely annoying with your lack of comprehension which will hopefully make me stop replying to your lack of points sometime soon.
Originally posted by TRHIslam didn't cause World War 1 though. The terrorists might have been Muslim, but their religion wasn't why they murdered the Duke of Austria-Hungary.
Islamic extremists assassinated heir to the throne of Austria-Hungry,Franz Fredidnad Which started world war 1 the peace treaty of World War 1 caused World War 2 which lead to the cold war at its end