Political opinions

*facedesk*


because nothing can come out of nothing, and everyone agrees (except for crackpots) that the universe was created at some point

to start anyway

thats the thing with you atheists, you argue like 4 year olds

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

*facedesk*


because nothing can come out of nothing, and everyone agrees (except for crackpots) that the universe was created at some point

to start anyway

thats the thing with you atheists, you argue like 4 year olds

Big Bang. I don't understand it myself, because I don't have any sort of degree in physics, but it makes a good deal more sense than saying that a magic being created everything by thinking about it. If that were the case, where did it come from?

Making generalizations about the opposition doesn't help this debate any. I can't help but point out that you're the one who's starting that, although I am now guilty of something similar.

teh bunny is laughing at you two, in case you couldent tell.

Its pretty much true, the teapot argument is a favorite with every athiest i've ever argued with

and where did the super dense ball of matter come from? it sounds better, but it still doesn't make sense

AND GOD LIVES OUT OF TIME, BEGINNING AND END ARE IRRELEVANT

show this to teh bunny

superninjakiwi wrote:

Kobialka wrote:

Speaking of religion, most of us here are Christian so think about this. Why in the why do Christians baptize babies? It's not like babies have done anything wrong. Why not baptize them when they are old enough to even understand what is going on? Plus, it's not like we can hold 5 year olds accountable for "sins".

not all christians are idiots like that. mormons baptize at 8, when they (kind of) understand what's going on.

THAT makes sense. Mormons are not what everyone says they are. They are smarter than most people thinks.

how...?

thank you for the compliment, kobalkia. and as for you, coal, this is my answer:

is that supposed to represent a cherry bomb or...?

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

is that supposed to represent a cherry bomb or...?

My guess is that he's throwing tomatoes at you.

nope. just a cherry. it is combustible though.....

Point being the Bible wasn't made by Catholics.

oh...


cant be, everyone loves me, especially mormons I insult :O

Sir Tielton wrote:

Point being the Bible wasn't made by Catholics.

most of it wasn't, but we put it together, so we get to say what goes in it

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

Sir Tielton wrote:

Point being the Bible wasn't made by Catholics.

most of it wasn't, but we put it together, so we get to say what goes in it

Which rather defeats the point of a holy book, don't you think?

exisly, that's why we made it go back to the original version BEFORE the caths messed it up.

nooo...


does it defeat the technic pack because it doesn't have every single mod ever made in it?

Joseph smith was a liar, he just wanted 30 underaged wives

? what?

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

nooo...


does it defeat the technic pack because it doesn't have every single mod ever made in it?

That's completely different.

And what you're saying is the Jews made the Bible, then you just selectively picked entries that suited your ideals despite the rule against said meddling.

im pretty sure he ended dieng with 30+ wives XD


honestly, the story of the book of mormom makes me rofl

"the Indians were red because they killed a tribe of Jews"

"adam and eve lived in Missouri"


XD

what's this about 30 wives?

Sir Tielton wrote:

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

nooo...


does it defeat the technic pack because it doesn't have every single mod ever made in it?

That's completely different.

And what you're saying is the Jews made the Bible, then you just selectively picked entries that suited your ideals despite the rule against said meddling.

no, they wrote the torah and the septuagent.


I'll go ahead and say it, tiel, you have no knowledge about any of this, just some ideas that your Jehovahs witness upbringing gave you, and politically correct assumptions

lock this, it is pointless, and the person with few facts is ragin about some else who he thinks has few facts.