+- Las Venturas Playground (https://forum.sa-mp.nl)
+-- Forum: Miscellaneous (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General Talk (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-24.html)
+--- Thread: [Serious Discussion] Religion (/thread-26936.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Maka - 06-04-2011
You have said several times in this thread that you have posted facts. Facts equal something being CORRECT. If I'd say Target has replied in this topic several times, then that is CORRECT as it is a FACT. Now in this post you claim you have faith in it but are not sure it is correct. I haven't even attempted to convince you that there isn't any God or whatsoever, so you're once again making shit up. I'm far from a retard considering my posts look ten times more decent than yours and I at least can spell decent English unlike you.
You haven't defended anything because you keep rambling on about the same goddamn shit. Over and over again are you replying with the same shit you've replied with twenty pages before. And once again, I have never in this thread attempted to prove you wrong, so you can take that comment back or you can proceed to shove that one too, if it makes you feel better.
My statement only fails in your eyes. I have yet to see anyone else reply directly to what I have said and claim me incorrect. Hell kiddo, I could say the same thing towards you; "Your statement failed, no matter what you'll say now". How do you like that one?
And here is once AGAIN you stating that religion is CORRECT:
(06-04-2011, 03:52 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: at the same time, if it isnt religion it doesnt mean it's right. u can go read my posts now, my "facts" were always making the incredibility of Religion bigger, facts should actually do that in a debate, but didnt say they prove specific things such as existance of God
See that? If it ISN'T RELIGION, it DOESN'T MEAN it's right. In actuality, you should be saying: If it isn't religion, it doesn't mean it's incorrect, OR: If it is religion, it doesn't mean it's incorrect. See how that is? Makes way more sense.
Personal attacks my arse. I'm always like this and I've always loved saying what the fuck I think. People who've been here for years know that, so I'm not surprised you once again gave me a reply like that. As to end it, you have to stop mixing shit up, because it's quite obvious you do. I have not once tried to convince YOU that there is no God. Time for you to get YOUR facts straight. I'm guessing I'll hop off the boat again from replying though, seeing it's just like talking to a big brick wall anyway. Feel happy all you want but in the end, people on here will still see you as being an immature child.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-04-2011
"quote where i said that atheism has nothing to be correct about BECAUSE it isn't a religion, didnt even say it's a religion, nice false facts u got there, now rage some more
how could i be taken seriously by retards like u? LOL.learn what IF clauses are, you do that please"
..waiting
"See that? If it ISN'T RELIGION, it DOESN'T MEAN it's right. In actuality, you should be saying: If it isn't religion, it doesn't mean it's incorrect, OR: If it is religion, it doesn't mean it's incorrect. See how that is? Makes way more sense."
LOL, u kidding me right? "right" was meant as "correct", so it doesnt make it "no sense" if u'd read my whole post. this was just a sentence from my whole post, if you connect the parts of the post together it does make sense.
so don't u judge me on my own statement, because i had just made a reply on YOUR false statement as u could tell. the whole post is (read it next time) :
"whenever i mentioned facts , they werent proofs that proved God but for e.g. saying that if it isn't religion then it has nothing to be correct about, Science isn't religion aswell and it obviously has to be correct about loads of things and has to PROVE those things so ur statement failed, no matter what u say now. at the same time, if it isnt religion it doesnt mean it's right. u can go read my posts now, my "facts" were always making the incredibility of Religion bigger, facts should actually do that in a debate, but didnt say they prove specific things such as existance of God"
u can also explain it : if it isn't religion it doesn't mean it's right - that's perfectly normal. doesn't HAVE to be right, where from that could u tell that i was saying that religion is CORRECT straight from that (even if i did say that, would be just my opinion, im not one of those "cuz i say so" guys)? my post was a reply to ur false statement
ur statement did fail in general (read my previous post, u didn't even reply to it, u just focused on ONE sentence, nice one), ive explained it briefly why it does, u didnt explain urself on that so i take it as a confirmation. don't say it fails just for me because otherwise u'd reply on my view of ur statement. you, talking about facts.. cant even get them well explained
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Maka - 06-04-2011
Learn to spell. My post didn't fail and I bet I could get a bunch of others supporting it too, unlike yours. Seriously, I don't bother reading your crappy posts anymore. Go study some English.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-04-2011
(06-04-2011, 03:52 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: whenever i mentioned facts , they werent proofs that proved God but for e.g. saying that if it isn't religion then it has nothing to be correct about, Science isn't religion aswell and it obviously has to be correct about loads of things and has to PROVE those things so ur statement failed, no matter what u say now. at the same time, if it isnt religion it doesnt mean it's right. u can go read my posts now, my "facts" were always making the incredibility of Religion bigger, facts should actually do that in a debate, but didnt say they prove specific things such as existance of God
thats how u make conclusions mister, now go off topic again, troll ("Go study English" that was educated one indeed! go facepalm urself again for me please). i hope u learned what facts are by now. ur statement did fail.
(06-04-2011, 03:10 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: quote where i said that atheism has nothing to be correct about BECAUSE it isn't a religion, didnt even say it's a religion, nice false facts u got there, now rage some more
learn what IF clauses are, you do that please
obviously didn't do that, so caught on lie.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Maka - 06-04-2011
Massive, a newbie telling me I don't know what facts are. It's funny too cos now it looks like I'm the one that's getting to you even though that wasn't what I was trying to do, haha.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-04-2011
(06-04-2011, 05:04 PM)Maka link Wrote: Massive, a newbie telling me I don't know what facts are. It's funny too cos now it looks like I'm the one that's getting to you even though that wasn't what I was trying to do, haha.
yea u really got into me, thats why im calling u a newbie. FACTs indeed.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - [SAE]Grim - 06-04-2011
(06-04-2011, 01:39 PM)Maddolis link Wrote: For the record I didn't say anything against atheism in itself, only a counter-argument to an incorrect generalization that many explicit atheists often make in similar arguments. I'm not entirely sure what I am right now but I'm probably closest to being an implicit atheist.
Yea I didnt mean it that way, I just put it simple cos it wasnt important to my post as a whole.
And rofl at you styla. How is it even possible XD
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-04-2011
mr. IMO lmao!! xD
"Yea I didnt mean it that way" then dont.. just dont
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Hybrid - 06-04-2011
10k views, that's incredibly stupid.
I agree with Grim, even before I even read one letter he said.
peace
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-04-2011
letter? oh... well yes, ok!
(i know who u are, trolld on ur topic! xD gl on ur ban request)