Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you just modify a mod's post?
nope, insulting is the last word of this post:
Originally posted by Digi
The thread starter himself relented on his opening post and admitted his error. Please consider a similar apology yourself, because, frankly, your opinion (or rather, your agreement with the opinion you posted) is insulting.
I don't understand the tolorance thing either, methinks some sort of appologist doing some sort of appologetics
Re: Why do Athiest post here
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
they come in the forums and mainly go against what these topics are even about. IMO if you don't believe in god then you really shouldn't be posting here.
Like if there was a gay bar, Would a normal guy walk into a gay bar expressing opinions against gays? no
Yeah...that's what gay guys do.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"..." would have been nice.
it would have been '...' as opposed to "...", as the single ' denotes that a term is being mentioned, though the double indicates speech.
Originally posted by Evilbigfoot
Just giving you crap, for example: (Bob and Joe conversation)Bob: "Joe, you're an idiot."
Joe: "That's not nice, I'm going to cry in a corner now."
Bob: "Bah, grow a spine."--In other words, obtain 'tolerance'No hard feelings 😉
a) that is censorship, not tolorance
b) you really haven't thought your own logic through, watch:
Bob: "Joe, you're an idiot."
Joe: "That's not nice, I'm going to cry in a corner now."
Bob: "Bah, grow a spine."
Joe: "Tolerate the fact that I am offended"
you really didn't even think past 'reactionary dumbass remark' did you?
Originally posted by inimalist
i will escalate the grammar nazi-domit will be a SVO holocaust up in this mother
However, I was talking about a portion of text that was missing from his/her post (or what I wished had been there). Therefore, both ("😉 or ('😉 is appropriate. The only problem with ("😉 is that it is an imaginary quote, and I think that is why you thought it was wrong. 😄
Originally posted by inimalist
it would have been '...' as opposed to "...", as the single ' denotes that a term is being mentioned, though the double indicates speech.a) that is censorship, not tolorance
b) you really haven't thought your own logic through, watch:
Bob: "Joe, you're an idiot."
Joe: "That's not nice, I'm going to cry in a corner now."
Bob: "Bah, grow a spine."
Joe: "Tolerate the fact that I am offended"you really didn't even think past 'reactionary dumbass remark' did you?
Meh, you have to look beyond the picture? What you have stated is another outcome that can be assumed, I suppose, excuse me for not giving a ****.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Why do Athiests believe we become worm food when many scientists with their experiments feel that life is never ending? We are all energy and that cannot be destroyed. It only changes location and form.
Can you provide a citation for experiments that suggest "life is never ending"?
You could argue that we will always exist because matter/energy cannot be destroyed but that's an empty statement. By that definition if I smash my computer after making this post it won't be destroyed or when Hiroshima was nuked it was still there. The matter is still there but what made my computer function or Hiroshima able to be defined as a city has been removed.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Why do Athiests believe we become worm food when many scientists with their experiments feel that life is never ending? We are all energy and that cannot be destroyed. It only changes location and form.
This:
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can you provide a citation for experiments that suggest "life is never ending"?You could argue that we will always exist because matter/energy cannot be destroyed but that's an empty statement. By that definition if I smash my computer after making this post it won't be destroyed or when Hiroshima was nuked it was still there. The matter is still there but what made my computer function or Hiroshima able to be defined as a city has been removed.
Also, referencing "scientists" is simply an appeal to authority, not a logical argument. Many scientists are also materialist atheists. Should I hinge my opinion on which side more scientists favor?
But if you want to define life as energy, feel free to do so. But it loses its normal meaning. There's no reason that doesn't involve blind faith that suggests you'll have consciousness of any sort again after you die, even if the matter/energy from your body gets put to use in other organisms.
Hi btw debbie. I've always enjoyed your presence here on the forums, but as you no doubt already know I don't mind pointing out when I think you're wrong.
Re: Why do Athiest post here
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
they come in the forums and mainly go against what these topics are even about. IMO if you don't believe in god then you really shouldn't be posting here.
Like if there was a gay bar, Would a normal guy walk into a gay bar expressing opinions against gays? no
Why you do you generalize? "They?" Are we the only individuals who go against what "those topics are even about?" You seem a little biased towards atheists.