AAAAH, i take everything back, there must be a god as there is also a devil:
Hahah. True. Accidentaly or not, you surprise me. There is no life without opposites. Day and night, hot and cold, male and female. Wherever there is good, there is bad. Long and short complete eachother, high and low support eachother. Difficult and easy need eachother. Form and space shape eachother.
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
Why not prove me wrong instead of making yourself look like an idiot?
The only one looking like an idiot is you, when you state stuff like
Eshkruar nga Guest, 31.03.2014 at 10:27
One of my proof was logic. Now, most people think that the big bang created the universe. I my self, don't dispute it. But think, before there was nothing. How could there be a explosion then? There you have it. I think it was God.
So again, asshole: How does that make religion true?
You didn't read my response at all. You didn't think at all. I just told you a reason why, yet you ask again.
AAAAH, i take everything back, there must be a god as there is also a devil:
Hahah. True. Accidentaly or not, you surprise me. There is no life without opposites. Day and night, hot and cold, male and female. Wherever there is good, there is bad. Long and short complete eachother, high and low support eachother. Difficult and easy need eachother. Form and space shape eachother.
well, in this case we must discuss the meaning of opposite first. waht is the opposite of things, when there are more than two things? for example: the state of matter: liquid, solid and gas (and plasma) so, waht is the opposite of liquid now? and if it's solid, waht id the opposite of gas now? if it's also solid, solid would have two opposites, wich would make everything not work as there is no answer to the question: waht is the opposite of solid: gas or liquid?
I am not totally familiar with the argument I'm posting, but I'll take a stab at it (heard it once) ...
1) Assume Christianity was responsible for the Dark ages.
2) The Dark Ages happened *in the former Roman Empire*
3) The rest of humanity, in that period of time, was able to come up with (most notably): base-10 mathematics ('arabic' numerals), navigation, and complex civil society based on cooperation, instead of conflict. ('Arabia', China and India).
ALL of these societies had 'state' religions.
4) Human technological advancement still continued without Europe and these non-European societies were religious (Islamic, Hindu and Confucian).
5) When the Dark Ages 'ended', Christianity was still as dominant a paradigm in Europe.
Therefore:
- 'Technological advancement' happens only if it is European Technological Advancement (Eurocentricisim).
- Christianity didn't cause the Dark Ages, and if it did, it also 'caused' the Enlightenment, as Christianity was the dominant power before, during and after the Dark Ages.
Mayan civilization - greatest architecture of all time. They even had sewers lol. Developed society, state religion(?), standing military. How long their civilization lasted? 1000 years?
Want to say; religion doesnt have to be connected with science and technology(like today, either you are religion fanatic or science freak). Before even priests studied science. Many schools and universities are started around monasteries and churches.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, sometimes-honorable always-opponent-of-everything-I-say. Again, you have taken things out of context. This time, I don't think you did it intentionally.
Remember:
1. Unleashed was saying that Christianity was the cause of the 'dark' aspect of the 'dark' ages. His reasoning?
Premise: Christianity was the dominant religion and strongest single political force at the time.
Conclusion: Therefore Christianity was responsible for the 'dark' ages.
2. Goblin was saying that the more likely 'cause' of the darkness was the breakup of the Roman Empire and the succeeding centuries of chaos.
I didn't mention this previously but even (hydraulic) cement was lost to humanity from about the fall of the Roman Empire to the 18th century (with few exceptions), and it wasn't until the 19th century that hydraulic cement formulation and use was as reliable, robust, and consistent as that of the Romans in 400 AD. So, yes, Europe fell far during the 'Dark Ages' - while there was some political and technological innovation that occurred during the Dark Ages (e.g. advanced crop rotation, Magna Carta), generally, Dark Ages 'sages' were focused on recapturing what was lost.
3. Rather than state an alternate theory (as Goblin did), I presented the thought experiment (above) which seemed to conclude:
- Human knowledge didn't end in the Dark Ages.
- Religion itself isn't the cause of the end of Human knowledge.
- Christianity alone wasn't the reason for the 'dark' aspect of the dark ages.
Religion AND the Scientific Method are both human cultural artifacts. They are tools, neither inherently good nor bad.
At its best, religion allowed societies to grow beyond the tribal size, and provided justification for simple rules of conduct (e.g. do not murder arbitrarily). At its worst, the Scientific method has brought us to the brink of extinction (nuclear warfare, environmental destruction).
Wielded in short-sighted, intolerant hands, both are weapons.
Embraced by wise and just people, both science and religion are powerful instruments of common-good.
===
So, I hope you understand that my thought experiment was a way to demonstrate Unleashed simplistic reasoning was merely that.
Want to say; religion doesnt have to be connected with science and technology(like today, either you are religion fanatic or science freak). Before even priests studied science. Many schools and universities are started around monasteries and churches.
With my defense complete, I tend to agree with you.
None of the three Abrahamic religions is monolithic. Islam has Sunnis and Shia, which war over the divinity of the hadith, and succession after the death of Mohammed. Christianity and Judaism likewise have many different factions.
Conflict theorists simplify the Dark Ages as being Catholicism vs. Science. Not only is this an over-simplification, it isn't true. Without the popularity of the Bible, there would be no Gutenberg and moveable-type printing, and therefore, no general literacy. The first printing press needed a 'best seller' to be financially profitable.
There were parts of Catholicism that were opposed to certain scientific claims, true. These same parts had no issue with other scientific claims - it just so happens that the anti-Galilean-Copernican/anti-heliocentricists were wrong - they thought the theory that putting the sun at the Centre of the Universe would obviate the existence of God. Factually, in terms of the center of the universe, both the Church and Galileo/Copernicus were of course wrong - the earth is not the center, the sun is not the center ... there is no center.
If anyone gets a chance, read Guns, Germs and Steel. Technological advancements do likely occur due to conflict, but conflict alone is not the *reason* why technological advancement is so rapid in some places (Eurasia) than in others (Africa). There are wars and fighting everywhere throughout history. Agriculture and writing were independently developed in many places.
AAAAH, i take everything back, there must be a god as there is also a devil:
Hahah. True. Accidentaly or not, you surprise me. There is no life without opposites. Day and night, hot and cold, male and female. Wherever there is good, there is bad. Long and short complete eachother, high and low support eachother. Difficult and easy need eachother. Form and space shape eachother.
well, in this case we must discuss the meaning of opposite first. waht is the opposite of things, when there are more than two things? for example: the state of matter: liquid, solid and gas (and plasma) so, waht is the opposite of liquid now? and if it's solid, waht id the opposite of gas now? if it's also solid, solid would have two opposites, wich would make everything not work as there is no answer to the question: waht is the opposite of solid: gas or liquid?
Since the early-mid 20th century, philosophers, physicists and chemists all agree that these distinctions are very meaningful to human beings and of little meaning otherwise.
All 'classical' states of matter are a contiuuum; liquid, solid, gas and plasma are matter within certain boundaries of phase change.
All matter is merely energy within a certain human definition.
All energy is just an expression of the averaged localized geometry of spacetime in the time and space discussed.
All biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, all physics is math, all math is logic, and all logic is philosophy.
As we know, all philosophy is bullshit.
===
Is 'male' the 'opposite' of 'female'? Don't both 'want' their progeny to prosper, and both 'want' their genes to propagate?
etc.
well, in this case we must discuss the meaning of opposite first. waht is the opposite of things, when there are more than two things? for example: the state of matter: liquid, solid and gas (and plasma) so, waht is the opposite of liquid now? and if it's solid, waht id the opposite of gas now? if it's also solid, solid would have two opposites, wich would make everything not work as there is no answer to the question: waht is the opposite of solid: gas or liquid?
Since the early-mid 20th century, philosophers, physicists and chemists all agree that these distinctions are very meaningful to human beings and of little meaning otherwise.
All 'classical' states of matter are a contiuuum; liquid, solid, gas and plasma are matter within certain boundaries of phase change.
All matter is merely energy within a certain human definition.
All energy is just an expression of the averaged localized geometry of spacetime in the time and space discussed.
All biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, all physics is math, all math is logic, and all logic is philosophy.
As we know, all philosophy is bullshit.
===
Is 'male' the 'opposite' of 'female'? Don't both 'want' their progeny to prosper, and both 'want' their genes to propagate?
etc.
so you agree with me, that the therm 'opposite' makes no sense? xD
Your mistake is ignoring the proof I gave you. Do I have to repeat it?
Yes. Show us proof that god is real.
By definition, there cannot ever be proof, physical or logical, of the existence of the Abrahamic God. This assertion does not apply to the nature of other religions.
According to Abrahamists:
P1. The God of Abraham (and of Jews, Christians and Muslims) transcends time, is completely good, knows all, and there is nothing God cannot do. These are known as omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnicience, and omnipotence. These characteristics are a matter of belief to followers of the God of Abraham (GoA).
P2. The GoA requires all of his subjects to have absolute faith in these characteristics.
Logically;
P3. Evidence has no meaning unless the evidence is generalized (e.g. everyone with the same evidence would draw similar meaning from it).
Faith is belief in the absence of proof.
Absolute faith is absolute belief in the absence of proof.
Proof, in this strict definition, is irrefutable evidence.
Therefore:
C1: Evidence of the existence of the GoAis not irrefutable proof. e.g. Moses (a prophet common to these three religions) incarnated miracles yet no one claims he is GoA.
C2: Absolute faith in a belief, by necessity, requires the lack of proof.
C3: The absence of proof of the existence of the GoA does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA.
C4: Arguments against the existence of the GoA (best is the 'problem of evil') does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Finally:
1. Every time you say (to a believer in the God of Abraham) 'show me your proof of GoA' you are providing additional logical validation of their absolute faith - such proof cannot exist, because if it did, GoA would not require absolute faith.
2. In science, a theory maintains functional usefulness (validity and explanatory value) if it explains phenomenon efficiently, has testable propositions, and those propositions are repeatedly confirmed via observation and experiment, all via the scientific method. Assertions regarding GoA do not meet these qualifications.
Neither do these assertions:
- Your mother loves you.
- There are human rights.
- Human beings are of equal moral worth.
- Human beings possess free will.
- Putin is a boss.
- Putin is not a boss.
The 'truth value' of these propositions is not affected by their lack of rigorous adherence to scientific theories.
Your mistake is ignoring the proof I gave you. Do I have to repeat it?
Yes. Show us proof that god is real.
By definition, there cannot ever be proof, physical or logical, of the existence of the Abrahamic God. This assertion does not apply to the nature of other religions.
According to Abrahamists:
P1. The God of Abraham (and of Jews, Christians and Muslims) transcends time, is completely good, knows all, and there is nothing God cannot do. These are known as omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnicience, and omnipotence. These characteristics are a matter of belief to followers of the God of Abraham (GoA).
P2. The GoA requires all of his subjects to have absolute faith in these characteristics.
Logically;
P3. Evidence has no meaning unless the evidence is generalized (e.g. everyone with the same evidence would draw similar meaning from it).
Faith is belief in the absence of proof.
Absolute faith is absolute belief in the absence of proof.
Proof, in this strict definition, is irrefutable evidence.
Therefore:
C1: Evidence of the existence of the GoAis not irrefutable proof. e.g. Moses (a prophet common to these three religions) incarnated miracles yet no one claims he is GoA.
C2: Absolute faith in a belief, by necessity, requires the lack of proof.
C3: The absence of proof of the existence of the GoA does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA.
C4: Arguments against the existence of the GoA (best is the 'problem of evil') does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Finally:
1. Every time you say (to a believer in the God of Abraham) 'show me your proof of GoA' you are providing additional logical validation of their absolute faith - such proof cannot exist, because if it did, GoA would not require absolute faith.
2. In science, a theory maintains functional usefulness (validity and explanatory value) if it explains phenomenon efficiently, has testable propositions, and those propositions are repeatedly confirmed via observation and experiment, all via the scientific method. Assertions regarding GoA do not meet these qualifications.
Neither do these assertions:
- Your mother loves you.
- There are human rights.
- Human beings are of equal moral worth.
- Human beings possess free will.
- Putin is a boss.
- Putin is not a boss.
The 'truth value' of these propositions is not affected by their lack of rigorous adherence to scientific theories.
Dude you are not running for president ease up with the language and the autism :) i would need 1 hour for each of your posts to reply.At least.Not only you speak like you are a professor giving a lecture,each time you reply you bring up 10 new topics and 10 new arguments and i get the feeling you do it just "because"..Do you have personal opinions?In simple english?And on topic?If yes then im interested to hear them.If i want to read a book ill go download one..if i want to interact with a person who when i ask one question replies with 10 more questions ill go get a girlfriend
well, in this case we must discuss the meaning of opposite first. waht is the opposite of things, when there are more than two things? for example: the state of matter: liquid, solid and gas (and plasma) so, waht is the opposite of liquid now? and if it's solid, waht id the opposite of gas now? if it's also solid, solid would have two opposites, wich would make everything not work as there is no answer to the question: waht is the opposite of solid: gas or liquid?
Since the early-mid 20th century, philosophers, physicists and chemists all agree that these distinctions are very meaningful to human beings and of little meaning otherwise.
All 'classical' states of matter are a contiuuum; liquid, solid, gas and plasma are matter within certain boundaries of phase change.
All matter is merely energy within a certain human definition.
All energy is just an expression of the averaged localized geometry of spacetime in the time and space discussed.
All biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, all physics is math, all math is logic, and all logic is philosophy.
As we know, all philosophy is bullshit.
===
Is 'male' the 'opposite' of 'female'? Don't both 'want' their progeny to prosper, and both 'want' their genes to propagate?
etc.
so you agree with me, that the therm 'opposite' makes no sense? xD
The meaning of the word 'opposite' has definite value for human beings in normal conversation - there I suppose I would disagree with you.
Example: "Tito, how can you call Putin's actions justice? The invasion of Crimea was the opposite of justice ...."
I am implicitly acknowledging that Tito and I generally agree what justice is. We would argue as to whether 'the invasion' did or did not meet the critera.
The plain meaning of opposite is meaningful. 'Heads' is the literal opposite of 'Tails' on a coin; they are not in conflict with each other, however, and almost never does one side win.
[Dude you are not running for president ease up with the language and the autism :) i would need 1 hour for each of your posts to reply.At least.Not only you speak like you are a professor giving a lecture,each time you reply you bring up 10 new topics and 10 new arguments and i get the feeling you do it just "because"..Do you have personal opinions?In simple english?And on topic?If yes then im interested to hear them.If i want to read a book ill go download one..if i want to interact with a person who when i ask one question replies with 10 more questions ill go get a girlfriend
Should I let him know that I ignored his posts ages ago to avoid all that nonsense and fluff?
Ooops I just did
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
Your mistake is ignoring the proof I gave you. Do I have to repeat it?
Yes. Show us proof that god is real.
By definition, there cannot ever be proof, physical or logical, of the existence of the Abrahamic God. This assertion does not apply to the nature of other religions.
According to Abrahamists:
P1. The God of Abraham (and of Jews, Christians and Muslims) transcends time, is completely good, knows all, and there is nothing God cannot do. These are known as omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnicience, and omnipotence. These characteristics are a matter of belief to followers of the God of Abraham (GoA).
P2. The GoA requires all of his subjects to have absolute faith in these characteristics.
Logically;
P3. Evidence has no meaning unless the evidence is generalized (e.g. everyone with the same evidence would draw similar meaning from it).
Faith is belief in the absence of proof.
Absolute faith is absolute belief in the absence of proof.
Proof, in this strict definition, is irrefutable evidence.
Therefore:
C1: Evidence of the existence of the GoAis not irrefutable proof. e.g. Moses (a prophet common to these three religions) incarnated miracles yet no one claims he is GoA.
C2: Absolute faith in a belief, by necessity, requires the lack of proof.
C3: The absence of proof of the existence of the GoA does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA.
C4: Arguments against the existence of the GoA (best is the 'problem of evil') does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Finally:
1. Every time you say (to a believer in the God of Abraham) 'show me your proof of GoA' you are providing additional logical validation of their absolute faith - such proof cannot exist, because if it did, GoA would not require absolute faith.
2. In science, a theory maintains functional usefulness (validity and explanatory value) if it explains phenomenon efficiently, has testable propositions, and those propositions are repeatedly confirmed via observation and experiment, all via the scientific method. Assertions regarding GoA do not meet these qualifications.
Neither do these assertions:
- Your mother loves you.
- There are human rights.
- Human beings are of equal moral worth.
- Human beings possess free will.
- Putin is a boss.
- Putin is not a boss.
The 'truth value' of these propositions is not affected by their lack of rigorous adherence to scientific theories.
Dude you are not running for president ease up with the language and the autism :) i would need 1 hour for each of your posts to reply.At least.Not only you speak like you are a professor giving a lecture,each time you reply you bring up 10 new topics and 10 new arguments and i get the feeling you do it just "because"..Do you have personal opinions?In simple english?And on topic?If yes then im interested to hear them.If i want to read a book ill go download one..if i want to interact with a person who when i ask one question replies with 10 more questions ill go get a girlfriend
You can't understand him? I think you need to learn English better. Not insulting or anything like that btw.
Your mistake is ignoring the proof I gave you. Do I have to repeat it?
Yes. Show us proof that god is real.
By definition, there cannot ever be proof, physical or logical, of the existence of the Abrahamic God. This assertion does not apply to the nature of other religions.
According to Abrahamists:
P1. The God of Abraham (and of Jews, Christians and Muslims) transcends time, is completely good, knows all, and there is nothing God cannot do. These are known as omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnicience, and omnipotence. These characteristics are a matter of belief to followers of the God of Abraham (GoA).
P2. The GoA requires all of his subjects to have absolute faith in these characteristics.
Logically;
P3. Evidence has no meaning unless the evidence is generalized (e.g. everyone with the same evidence would draw similar meaning from it).
Faith is belief in the absence of proof.
Absolute faith is absolute belief in the absence of proof.
Proof, in this strict definition, is irrefutable evidence.
Therefore:
C1: Evidence of the existence of the GoAis not irrefutable proof. e.g. Moses (a prophet common to these three religions) incarnated miracles yet no one claims he is GoA.
C2: Absolute faith in a belief, by necessity, requires the lack of proof.
C3: The absence of proof of the existence of the GoA does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA.
C4: Arguments against the existence of the GoA (best is the 'problem of evil') does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Finally:
1. Every time you say (to a believer in the God of Abraham) 'show me your proof of GoA' you are providing additional logical validation of their absolute faith - such proof cannot exist, because if it did, GoA would not require absolute faith.
2. In science, a theory maintains functional usefulness (validity and explanatory value) if it explains phenomenon efficiently, has testable propositions, and those propositions are repeatedly confirmed via observation and experiment, all via the scientific method. Assertions regarding GoA do not meet these qualifications.
Neither do these assertions:
- Your mother loves you.
- There are human rights.
- Human beings are of equal moral worth.
- Human beings possess free will.
- Putin is a boss.
- Putin is not a boss.
The 'truth value' of these propositions is not affected by their lack of rigorous adherence to scientific theories.
Dude you are not running for president ease up with the language and the autism :) i would need 1 hour for each of your posts to reply.At least.Not only you speak like you are a professor giving a lecture,each time you reply you bring up 10 new topics and 10 new arguments and i get the feeling you do it just "because"..Do you have personal opinions?In simple english?And on topic?If yes then im interested to hear them.If i want to read a book ill go download one..if i want to interact with a person who when i ask one question replies with 10 more questions ill go get a girlfriend
You are absolutely right about basic english. It is hard for me to switch gears.
On thread crapping, I didn't start it, by a longshot - so you need to take that somewhere else. I am just replying.
Long posts: I give evidence and reasoning for saying something. That the questions are simple doesn't mean the answers aren't complex: this is the world, K.
If there is one opinion I've been saying all along: I h8 intolerance. Whatever it is.
Your mistake is ignoring the proof I gave you. Do I have to repeat it?
Yes. Show us proof that god is real.
By definition, there cannot ever be proof, physical or logical, of the existence of the Abrahamic God. This assertion does not apply to the nature of other religions.
According to Abrahamists:
P1. The God of Abraham (and of Jews, Christians and Muslims) transcends time, is completely good, knows all, and there is nothing God cannot do. These are known as omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnicience, and omnipotence. These characteristics are a matter of belief to followers of the God of Abraham (GoA).
P2. The GoA requires all of his subjects to have absolute faith in these characteristics.
Logically;
P3. Evidence has no meaning unless the evidence is generalized (e.g. everyone with the same evidence would draw similar meaning from it).
Faith is belief in the absence of proof.
Absolute faith is absolute belief in the absence of proof.
Proof, in this strict definition, is irrefutable evidence.
Therefore:
C1: Evidence of the existence of the GoAis not irrefutable proof. e.g. Moses (a prophet common to these three religions) incarnated miracles yet no one claims he is GoA.
C2: Absolute faith in a belief, by necessity, requires the lack of proof.
C3: The absence of proof of the existence of the GoA does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA.
C4: Arguments against the existence of the GoA (best is the 'problem of evil') does not affect the truth state of a person having absolute faith in the existence of the GoA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Finally:
1. Every time you say (to a believer in the God of Abraham) 'show me your proof of GoA' you are providing additional logical validation of their absolute faith - such proof cannot exist, because if it did, GoA would not require absolute faith.
2. In science, a theory maintains functional usefulness (validity and explanatory value) if it explains phenomenon efficiently, has testable propositions, and those propositions are repeatedly confirmed via observation and experiment, all via the scientific method. Assertions regarding GoA do not meet these qualifications.
Neither do these assertions:
- Your mother loves you.
- There are human rights.
- Human beings are of equal moral worth.
- Human beings possess free will.
- Putin is a boss.
- Putin is not a boss.
The 'truth value' of these propositions is not affected by their lack of rigorous adherence to scientific theories.
Dude you are not running for president ease up with the language and the autism :) i would need 1 hour for each of your posts to reply.At least.Not only you speak like you are a professor giving a lecture,each time you reply you bring up 10 new topics and 10 new arguments and i get the feeling you do it just "because"..Do you have personal opinions?In simple english?And on topic?If yes then im interested to hear them.If i want to read a book ill go download one..if i want to interact with a person who when i ask one question replies with 10 more questions ill go get a girlfriend
It is your thread boss. For what its worth, I type fast.
Apologies for thread-crapping. In my defense I'm not the only one.
As for my opinions: u know I h8 h8rs lulz.
lol no its fine and i am not the boss.i personally cant be bothered to follow your posts unless i have a lot of time-patience thats the reason im saying this, as an advice,not to insult or discourage you..if im having a hard time to follow imagine the so many "slow" people around here
[Dude you are not running for president ease up with the language and the autism :) i would need 1 hour for each of your posts to reply.At least.Not only you speak like you are a professor giving a lecture,each time you reply you bring up 10 new topics and 10 new arguments and i get the feeling you do it just "because"..Do you have personal opinions?In simple english?And on topic?If yes then im interested to hear them.If i want to read a book ill go download one..if i want to interact with a person who when i ask one question replies with 10 more questions ill go get a girlfriend
Should I let him know that I ignored his posts ages ago to avoid all that nonsense and fluff?
[Dude you are not running for president ease up with the language and the autism :) i would need 1 hour for each of your posts to reply.At least.Not only you speak like you are a professor giving a lecture,each time you reply you bring up 10 new topics and 10 new arguments and i get the feeling you do it just "because"..Do you have personal opinions?In simple english?And on topic?If yes then im interested to hear them.If i want to read a book ill go download one..if i want to interact with a person who when i ask one question replies with 10 more questions ill go get a girlfriend
Should I let him know that I ignored his posts ages ago to avoid all that nonsense and fluff?
Ooops I just did
Said it before: Don't give a shit if u change ur mind. U won't. If you think I would waste more than the first post on you, you're wrong. You lack elementary reasoning ability and common cultural literacy. I didn't prove this. You did.
I post so others that are disgusted by your hate know they aren't alone. I also post so those few on the fence won't see your bullshit unanswered.
You might be the last person who would have any justification for telling someone to 'be quiet' because they 'got their (intellectual) ass handed to them.
To the idiots believing in god-given rights (zombie's friends)
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
duke u karikuar...
duke u karikuar...
Black Shark Llogaria u fshi
04.04.2014 - 11:22
Black Shark Llogaria u fshi
Calin doesn't understand. People were given free will, and abused it. The victims will still find salvation, while the abusers get punished. Think this, a limited time of suffering and then infinite happiness > A limited time of happiness, then infinite pain.
Calin doesn't understand. People were given free will, and abused it. The victims will still find salvation, while the abusers get punished. Think this, a limited time of suffering and then infinite happiness > A limited time of happiness, then infinite pain.
Then get some mad man to start ww3 so we can all go to heaven now.
