What Religion are You?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 43831
  • Start date Start date

What are you?

  • Christian

  • Jewish

  • Muslim

  • Hindu

  • Zoroastrianist

  • Buddhist

  • Agnostic

  • Gnostic

  • Something else

  • ... atheist


Results are only viewable after voting.
Truly, you are the definition of an idiot.
Do you know what “Burden of Proof” means?
Have you heard of this before?

I feel stupider everytime I interact with you 3 or 4 retards on this forum. And I don’t mean that as an insult, but in the true sense of the word.

I almost feel bad for getting stuck into you guys here, but you indicate evidence that you can think and reason objectively, which is why it’s bizarre to see such fucked up posts from you ones.
But I’ve gotta say, there’s a pattern emerging which shows you must have areas in your brain which are missing neural connections. Possibly an injury?
Either way, you’re actually cognitively undeveloped. I’ll ease up.

I’ve tried explaining “Russell’s Teapot” to him multiple times. He just doesn’t have it in him
 
IMG_0424.jpeg
 
Why would a temporary physical death mean anything to the author of life, who can give and take freely as they please?

Blessings and good morning Donnie.
Your god is a cunt. Got it.

And not an Australian or British cunt either.
 
It's ok if he unloads his God complex. I will listen.
 
Fictional characters can be, and often are, cunts.
It's stating more about yourself when you discuss someone or something using very foul language. No doubt there is some hurt or offense tied to the way you are talking.
 
There are literally hundreds of articles from reputable outlets on the subject.

https://www.livescience.com/63093-shroud-of-turin-is-fake-bloodstains.html
it was retested. When it was saved from the fire in the 12th or 13th century, it was damaged and repaired. In 88 when it was tested-they tested a sample from the repair. New results are different than what was stated back then. New and improved tech as well. It was retested a few years ago with some pretty amazing results.
 
it was retested. When it was saved from the fire in the 12th or 13th century, it was damaged and repaired. In 88 when it was tested-they tested a sample from the repair. New results are different than what was stated back then. New and improved tech as well. It was retested a few years ago with some pretty amazing results.
Link please. I’ll actually read it.
 
It's stating more about yourself when you discuss someone or something using very foul language. No doubt there is some hurt or offense tied to the way you are talking.
Where’s the line between very foul and regular foul? Who defines it?

I’m somewhat offended by willful stupidity in light of the fact we live in an age where information on every single thing ever is available.

I take pleasure in knowing that it’s just the final death spasms in the corpse of last generation of superstitious sheep.
 
Back
Top