NationStates

O5vx wrote:

Seperates wrote:Yes, it does. The telomeric shorten, and eventually, run out. That's why you die and age even if you stayed healthy your entire life. If DNA didn't change, we could live for fucking ever.

Dude, the sheer existence of cancer renders your argument as irrelevant.

It is only transforming, not changing.

Unless your definition of "changing" is going to something that is not classified as DNA (and fucking transmutation at that), it is changing.

So, define 'changing' would you? Or are you going to not define it like a fucking coward, and hide behind the walls of word obscurity? Because any good philosopher defines his fucking terms before he tries to debate.

O5vx wrote:You all crazy. That's my explanation for your blatant dishonest to what you claim to understand. I refuse to continue arguing when you will continue to make up stuff.

You're not going to save face by doing that, contrary to what you may believe. You've been proven wrong in literally EVERY way. Just fucking admit it, and stop being intellectually dishonest.

Seperates wrote:

NEO Rome Republic wrote:
Now ''the freedom of getting high'' is the real civil rights battle.

Whenever anybody says to respect my religion I ask them to respect my right to human sacrifice. And I then ask them to volunteer for a human sacrifice. And if they say no, I inform them that they are impeding on my religious rights and disrespecting my religion, the penalty for which is... death via sacrificial dagger.

First of all, you can't ban belief, you can only ban practice.
Second, no one has the right to harm another person. You can ban the practice of hurting a person for religion because it violates a bigger right.
But you can't ban religions that are not causing harm to people on a base level. And no, that doesn't mean you can ban a religion because it has fringe members or groups that do shitty things.

O5vx wrote:You all crazy. That's my explanation for your blatant dishonest to what you claim to understand. I refuse to continue arguing when you will continue to make up stuff.

The only one making stuff up is you.

Ermiopa wrote:

Seperates wrote:Whenever anybody says to respect my religion I ask them to respect my right to human sacrifice. And I then ask them to volunteer for a human sacrifice. And if they say no, I inform them that they are impeding on my religious rights and disrespecting my religion, the penalty for which is... death via sacrificial dagger.

Respecting Religion =/= Participating in Religion

Also, there are no longer any religions apart from extremely obscure cults, that require human sacrifices.

Sir, it is a religion and you disrespected it. Not my fault if you are uneducated heathen scum.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
CHANGE FOR THE COINSTAR

Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:

Seperates wrote:Whenever anybody says to respect my religion I ask them to respect my right to human sacrifice. And I then ask them to volunteer for a human sacrifice. And if they say no, I inform them that they are impeding on my religious rights and disrespecting my religion, the penalty for which is... death via sacrificial dagger.

First of all, you can't ban belief, you can only ban practice.
Second, no one has the right to harm another person. You can ban the practice of hurting a person for religion because it violates a bigger right.
But you can't ban religions that are not causing harm to people on a base level. And no, that doesn't mean you can ban a religion because it has fringe members or groups that do shitty things.

I know. I'm pointing out that respect has little to do with the argument. We respect that which does not interfere with whatever we wish at the time. I respect people. Not beliefs.

The Silence of Night wrote:

O5vx wrote:You all crazy. That's my explanation for your blatant dishonest to what you claim to understand. I refuse to continue arguing when you will continue to make up stuff.

The only one making stuff up is you.

Sure. I'm the one bring scanty report as a scholarly argument.

Seperates wrote:

Ermiopa wrote:Respecting Religion =/= Participating in Religion

Also, there are no longer any religions apart from extremely obscure cults, that require human sacrifices.

Sir, it is a religion and you disrespected it. Not my fault if you are uneducated heathen scum.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
CHANGE FOR THE COINSTAR

This desrves to be AQ'd.

O5vx wrote:

The Silence of Night wrote:The only one making stuff up is you.

Sure. I'm the one bring scanty report as a scholarly argument.

What would be a good not-so-scanty source then?

O5vx wrote:

The Silence of Night wrote:The only one making stuff up is you.

Sure. I'm the one bring scanty report as a scholarly argument.

You are not bringing anything to this argument.

Scholarly? You wish.

O5vx wrote:

The Silence of Night wrote:The only one making stuff up is you.

Sure. I'm the one bring scanty report as a scholarly argument.

But you haven't explain why said report are scanty.

Seperates wrote:

Ermiopa wrote:Respecting Religion =/= Participating in Religion

Also, there are no longer any religions apart from extremely obscure cults, that require human sacrifices.

Sir, it is a religion and you disrespected it. Not my fault if you are uneducated heathen scum.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
CHANGE FOR THE COINSTAR

Its common curtesy to try to not disrespect religion through mockery, even if you are argueing against it. It is also common curtesy not to disrespect atheism through mockery, even if you are argueing against it.

If you choose to mock us for believing, despite not hurting anyone for it, then so be it. But just don't expect people to enjoy your company if you say things like that, even to make a point.

O5vx wrote:

The Silence of Night wrote:The only one making stuff up is you.

Sure. I'm the one bring scanty report as a scholarly argument.

You're not even bringing 'scanty report' - that's the point.

Reading your work in the thread as a whole, I'm coming to the conclusion this is all some kid of joke I'm just not getting. Well played.

O5vx wrote:

The Silence of Night wrote:The only one making stuff up is you.

Sure. I'm the one bring scanty report as a scholarly argument.

Proof that DNA does not change, give it to us.

Seperates wrote:

Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:First of all, you can't ban belief, you can only ban practice.
Second, no one has the right to harm another person. You can ban the practice of hurting a person for religion because it violates a bigger right.
But you can't ban religions that are not causing harm to people on a base level. And no, that doesn't mean you can ban a religion because it has fringe members or groups that do shitty things.

I know. I'm pointing out that respect has little to do with the argument. We respect that which does not interfere with whatever we wish at the time. I respect people. Not beliefs.

Sure, understandable. But there are levels of respect, imo. You have to have at least enough respect not to violently attack anyone who has that religion for the sole reason that they have that religion. So, what's your level?

O5vx wrote:You all crazy. That's my explanation for your blatant dishonest to what you claim to understand. I refuse to continue arguing when you will continue to make up stuff.

I'm sure you'll be able to easily quote any of the posts that involved made-up stuff, eh? Or can't you, because you made up that claim, and you're the one who has been making up stuff all this while?

O5vx wrote:

The Silence of Night wrote:The only one making stuff up is you.

Sure. I'm the one bring scanty report as a scholarly argument.

you haven't brought anything close to a scholarly argument. In fact, all you've done is make things up, and refused to support you're bullshit, all while claim others should do the same, and then when people do, you claim that it's not solid evidence.

O5vx wrote:You all crazy. That's my explanation for your blatant dishonest to what you claim to understand. I refuse to continue arguing when you will continue to make up stuff.

They're not making up stuff.

Ermiopa wrote:

Seperates wrote:Sir, it is a religion and you disrespected it. Not my fault if you are uneducated heathen scum.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
CHANGE FOR THE COINSTAR

Its common curtesy to try to not disrespect religion through mockery, even if you are argueing against it. It is also common curtesy not to disrespect atheism through mockery, even if you are argueing against it.

If you choose to mock us for believing, despite not hurting anyone for it, then so be it. But just don't expect people to enjoy your company if you say things like that, even to make a point.

Mock atheism then, I don't fucking care.

Oh, look at the silly man who doesn't believe in a supernatural deity. Guess what? That's it. That's all you have. Because that's all that atheism is. There is no code, there is no guideline, there is nothing else. I don't believe in atheism. It's merely a result.

Don't bullshit me with this respect thing. I'm not mocking you for believing. I'm mocking you for asking for respect simply because you believe. Respect doesn't work that way.

I don't think anyone has opened this can of worms yet.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:

Seperates wrote:I know. I'm pointing out that respect has little to do with the argument. We respect that which does not interfere with whatever we wish at the time. I respect people. Not beliefs.

Sure, understandable. But there are levels of respect, imo. You have to have at least enough respect not to violently attack anyone who has that religion for the sole reason that they have that religion. So, what's your level?

I see no reason to ban it, though it should not be placed on the pedestal it currently occupies. That's it. Respect is something that is earned, not given de facto. And religion has yet to earn my respect as an idea.

The Sovietyeto wrote:I don't think anyone has opened this can of worms yet.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

"IT'S ALL A TEST."

That's the answer that I've heard.

I am a Semi Observant Orthodox Jew.

Seperates wrote:

Ermiopa wrote:Respecting Religion =/= Participating in Religion

Also, there are no longer any religions apart from extremely obscure cults, that require human sacrifices.

Sir, it is a religion and you disrespected it. Not my fault if you are uneducated heathen scum.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
CHANGE FOR THE COINSTAR

This is getting sigged.

O5vx wrote:

The Silence of Night wrote:The only one making stuff up is you.

Sure. I'm the one bring scanty report as a scholarly argument.

You might want to heed my earlier advice.

Seperates wrote:Don't bullshit me with this respect thing. I'm not mocking you for believing. I'm mocking you for asking for respect simply because you believe. Respect doesn't work that way.

True story.

The Sovietyeto wrote:I don't think anyone has opened this can of worms yet.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Because if this god bloke exists then while he might love use very much he's only concerned if we have experience in life rather than we not suffering through it. he's saving that non-suffering part once life is over (If you're good enough to him of course) . both sides are free to call BS on this theory as much as you like.