DRUGS?

[Bardalicious]

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hell? i bet you still believe in the easter bunny too.

The conversation encapsulated sinning, thus religion as well. Just following suit. L2read

Thanks for taking the opportunity to hug my nuts though, obviously still mad for calling u out on lovin' dem pixels lawl.


HOW DAT TWITTER FEED OF MERC'N SPLITPAW GNOLLS COMIN' ALONG??

[Knuckle]

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alcohol is a drug. c u in hell

as per the bible, i will lead you to the land of mead and honey.

Sorry you fail at religion

[Piff]

Originally Posted by Knuckle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry you fail at religion

[Bardalicious]

Originally Posted by Knuckle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

as per the bible, i will lead you to the land of mead and honey.

Sorry you fail at religion

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth..." (Genesis 1:29)

The same can be said about Marijuana, Papaver somniferum, etc. Since it was "God" that created it for us, no? There are plenty of obscure passages that we can quote back and forth to cherry pick for our own defense.

If you are religious and condemning others for partaking in things like Marijuana while you obviously partake in alcohol yourself, you are a fool. It's easily asserted that the bible indicates that moderate consumption of alcohol is permitted, however drunkenness as a condition is condemned. I don't suppose you'd like to argue that you've never gotten drunk?

Do not be confused - I am not religious nor do I believe in God. There was a perfectly good Cthulu thread floating around RnF for you kiddies to argue his existence in.

[Piff]

Originally Posted by drkullnet [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bizde kendimizce konuyla alakalı sorulardan meydana gelen bir seyler hazirladik.

[Messianic]

lol, the thread's gone religious.

Piff, you don't have any good reason to say that there isn't a God.

Talk about things you can actually prove, like a real skeptic - not some armchair philosopher or hedonist attempting to justify their own belief by demeaning someone else's. It's easily possible to argue the question of God is irrelevant or meaningless - but you can't simply dismiss the idea of God as an impossibility.

Be a better Atheist.

[Piff]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. They say there is "hell", or "god". I don't need to give you proof of your own fallacies.

Keep believing in your God, keep paying your churches. Keep allowing the governtment to use morals built off of the bible as excuses.

If you're down with that, cool. But you're a fool yo.

[Feachie]

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. They say there is "hell", or "god". I don't need to give you proof of your own fallacies

This.

I don't need promises of paradise to make me be a good person.

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be
dismissed without evidence.

To dismiss something because it cannot produce the kind of evidence you demand - at present - is itself more erroneous than simply believing something that isn't transferable to others by a common means - science and reason alone.

Immanuel Kant disagrees with you and Christopher Hutchens and your categorical mistake. Again, you need to be a better Atheist. Right now you're just a comfortable hedonist.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't need to give you proof of your own fallacies.

Don't you see that's a fallacy in itself? To believe something without redundant, scientific (aka experiential) evidence isn't necessarily wrong - it's just nontransferable and at present, unverifiable by common means. You may dismiss it as irrelevant, but you don't know any more or any less than that which you categorize as a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Keep believing in your God, keep paying your churches.

Did I argue that I did or you should? Why bring this in? Again - you reaffirm to me that you choose Atheism as a reaction, not as a genuine attempt to believe what is true. You simply dislike what the red team does, so you choose blue team. Sounds like a brilliant move.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Keep allowing the governtment to use morals built off of the bible as excuses. If you're down with that, cool. But you're a fool yo.

Keep allowing the government to use morals built from individuals who believe they should control most of your life since they're more intelligent and more evolved than you - and your individual choices are ruining the world and must be controlled.

Hell, you don't even know where I stand or how I choose my political philosophy and you've categorized me as part of 10-15% of the Republican party. That's probably more evidence than I need to know how you choose how to live the rest of your life.

[Piff]

Originally Posted by Messianic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To dismiss something because it cannot produce the kind of evidence you demand - at present - is itself more erroneous than simply believing something that isn't transferable to others by a common means - science and reason alone.

Immanuel Kant disagrees with you and Christopher Hutchens and your categorical mistake. Again, you need to be a better Atheist. Right now you're just a comfortable hedonist.



Don't you see that's a fallacy in itself? To believe something without redundant, scientific (aka experiential) evidence isn't necessarily wrong - it's just nontransferable and at present, unverifiable by common means. You may dismiss it as irrelevant, but you don't know any more or any less than that which you categorize as a fallacy.



Did I argue that I did or you should? Why bring this in? Again - you reaffirm to me that you choose Atheism as a reaction, not as a genuine attempt to believe what is true. You simply dislike what the red team does, so you choose blue team. Sounds like a brilliant move.



Keep allowing the government to use morals built from individuals who believe they should control most of your life since they're more intelligent and more evolved than you - and your individual choices are ruining the world and must be controlled.

Hell, you don't even know where I stand or how I choose my political philosophy and you've categorized me as part of 10-15% of the Republican party. That's probably more evidence than I need to know how you choose how to live the rest of your life.

Atleast you're eco-friendly. You built your wall of text out of bullshit haha. You sound retarded. The fact is you can't believe there's a pen in your hand unless you prove it.

It's not a big deal bud, it's just this Jesus guy and his pops are innocent until proven guilty. Imaginary until proven reality. y'know?