The Left's War on Christianity

Place open for new posts — threads with fresh content will be moved to either Real-life Discussion or ESOC Talk sub-forums, where you can create new topics.
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Jaeger »

[quote source="/post/10053/thread" timestamp="1432229226" author="@bugattivitesse"][quote source="/post/10046/thread" timestamp="1432227092" author="@ovi12"]The part about the church discouraging scientific research, I already gave you Galileo Galileo. He was the guy who did things like perfecting the telescope, and realizing that objects fall at the same speed no matter their mass. With his observations from his telescope, he was able to realize that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth (the church tought it did). When he publicized his findings, the church bullied him into recanting and "admitting" that the earth DOES revolve around the sun. You can imagine the level of encouragement of astronomers after that incident.


For part about newton and the others:
Those scientists saw no problem with their faith because they had no knowledge there was any. They didn't have radiometric dating to prove that the earth is much older than the bible claims it is, and they didn't have the theory of evolution to prove that life developed contrary to how the bible says it did. That's why most scientists today are atheist, because they are exposed to those flaws.[/quote]The bible says nothing about the age of the earth. I think you will find that orthodox christians believe in an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, and accept evolution. The idea of a 6000 year old earth is flawed, and came from a 17th century preacher who took the genealogies and estimated how old the earth must have been. And to say that they simply didn't have enough research back then is just wrong. They knew the earth was much older. You are thinking of southern baptists or something, who reject evolution and an old earth based on their own ignorance.

A question for you since you keep on with Galileo. If Christians are supposed to live according to the Bible, and the Church at that time was persecuting him, not based on Biblical teaching, but based on their own opinions, should we accuse Christianity for his persecution?

My answer is of course not. We should judge a religion by its followers who follow it according to its own rules, not those who act ignoring them.

[/quote]How can adding up the genealogies be wrong? Even if he miscalculated, he couldn't have been off by that much.

I used to be a christian so I know some theology, and I don't think the idea of an old earth is compatible with the theology. For example, there is the popular day-age theory, which says that the days in the beginning of genesis actually represent long ages, so for example 1 day could represent many millions of years. However, if that was true it would mean that many animals lived and died before adam and eve. But this is impossible, because according to the bible, death came into the world when god cursed the world after adam ate the apple. This isn't the only theory tho, there are many theories that try to connect the genesis account with evolution tho, which one do you believe in?

Also, how could all of those sciencists at the time of Issac Newton have had any idea about how old the earth was? I guess some features of geology point to an old earth but those could easily be explained away by the church until radiometric dating was invented. Also, charles darwin wasn't even born yet in the time of newton. If those scientists lived in a very christian atmosphere with no good alternative theory for the origin of the universe and evolution of life, im not surprised at all they subscribed to christianity.
Also, if you think that sciencist's opinion about the validity of christianity in particular is important, you should consider that the vast majority of sciencists today are non-christian. Some believe in a god yes, but most of them don't believe in the christian god.

To answer your question, no I don't think we should hold all christians accountable, but we can definitely hold the catholic church accountable, since they claim that the words of the pope are the words of god, so the pope can never be wrong. I mentioned galileo because you asked me for an example of where christianity discouraged sciencific research.

On the same note, I still do think that religion in general discourages scientific research' if you already think you have answers to a lot of questions (like the origin of the universe for example) what motivation do you have for pursuing and researching that question any further? Sure you can say some people will still have motivation because they want to find the details, but it's definitely less motivation than if you thought you didn' know the answer at all. because they are in the bible
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
No Flag johaggis
Crossbow
Posts: 21
Joined: May 3, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by johaggis »

You have every right to tell me what to do. And I have every right not to listen. Anyway that's not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to figure why the original person talking about cats thought that torturing cats was wrong and who or what lay down that law. Unfortunately he has yet to make another appearance.

Why would the burden of proof be on me for something that is intuitively wrong? If I were to go and light a cat on fire because I was bored, would the burden of proof be on you to condemn my actions? Would you then need to go consult a philosophy book and come up with some coherent and infallible system of morals? Perhaps you would not condemn me for doing so because moral facts cannot be proven. But then, most moral anti-realists think that there is value in pretending as though morals are a real thing. Again, why would the burden of proof be on my intuitive claim, and not your radical, strongly counter-intuitive one?

I am not citing laws or any grand moral scheme here. I'm citing our (well, hopefully "our") intuitions. You might say moral claims are systematically false, but then you're not engaging my original claim, which was following from my belief that morals are a real thing. The claim was that they need not come from religion or some theory like Kant's. I used the case of lighting cats on fire as a clear-cut case, and if you agree that morals are real, yet deny this claim, then there's really no point in trying to discuss morals with you. If you declare that my hand doesn't exist and give me no real reason to think that, I'm gonna go about my life using my hand which, as far as I can tell, exists.
Last edited by johaggis on 21 May 2015, 23:21, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: I should probs quote that guy in my post
No Flag Mr. Pecksniff
Howdah
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mar 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Mr. Pecksniff »

drlegend wrote:
ovi12 wrote:How can adding up the genealogies be wrong? Even if he miscalculated, he couldnt have been off by that much.

I used to be a christian so I know some theology, and I dont think the idea of an old earth is compatible with the theology. For example, there is the popular day-age theory, which says that the days in the beginning of genesis actually represent long ages, so for example 1 day could represent many millions of years. However, if that was true it would mean that many animals lived and died before adam and eve. But this is impossible, because according to the bible, death came into the world when god cursed the world after adam ate the apple. This isnt the only theory tho, there are many theories that try to connect the genesis account with evolution tho, which one do you believe in?

Also, how could all of those sciencists at the time of Issac Newton have had any idea about how old the earth was? I guess some features of geology point to an old earth but those could easily be explained away by the church until radiometric dating was invented. Also, charles darwin wasnt even born yet in the time of newton. If those scientists lived in a very christian atmosphere with no good alternative theory for the origin of the universe and evolution of life, im not surprised at all they subscribed to christianity.
Also, if you think that sciencists opinion about the validity of christianity in particular is important, you should consider that the vast majority of sciencists today are non-christian. Some believe in a god yes, but most of them dont believe in the christian god.

To answer your question, no I dont think we should hold all christians accountable, but we can definitely hold the catholic church accountable, since they claim that the words of the pope are the words of god, so the pope can never be wrong. I mentioned galileo because you asked me for an example of where christianity discouraged sciencific research.

On the same note, I still do think that religion in general discourages scientific research' if you already think you have answers to a lot of questions (like the origin of the universe for example) what motivation do you have for pursuing and researching that question any further? Sure you can say some people will still have motivation because they want to find the details, but its definitely less motivation than if you thought you didn know the answer at all. because they are in the bible






Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method.

Neither do any of your posts.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by gibson »

calmyourtits wrote:
gibson wrote:You have every right to tell me what to do. And I have every right not to listen. Anyway thats not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to figure why the original person talking about cats thought that torturing cats was wrong and who or what lay down that law. Unfortunately he has yet to make another appearance.
Are you the gibson from agecomm?

How are you? I recall a 20+ page discussion about religion via PM lol
Yes, and I cringe and want to run away and hide when I think about how naive and stupid I was at that age, particularly when I think about that discussion. Deep down inside I didnt believe what I was debating and did a shitty job defending it anyway.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by gibson »

johaggis wrote:
You have every right to tell me what to do. And I have every right not to listen. Anyway that''s not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to figure why the original person talking about cats thought that torturing cats was wrong and who or what lay down that law. Unfortunately he has yet to make another appearance.
Why would the burden of proof be on me for something that is intuitively wrong?
You''ve completely missed my point, and that''s why I''ve deleted everything except your first sentence. If burning a cat was intuitively wrong, than you are absolutely correct. However that''s what I was trying to drive at in the first place. Why is it wrong? Is it wrong because you feel like it''s wrong? Clearly, if I''m burning the cat, I don''t think it''s wrong. So it''s just my feeling that it''s not wrong vs your feeling that it is wrong and quite frankly, I don''t give two shits and a rats ass what you think and am going to torture the cat anyway( For those of you who are just going to read this and then condemn me torturing a cat, this is an example. I personally do not gain pleasure from torturing animals, so see no reason to do so).
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Jaeger »

[quote timestamp="1432264105" author="@drlegend" source="/post/10133/thread"][quote author="@ovi12" timestamp="1432233589" source="/post/10081/thread"]How can adding up the genealogies be wrong? Even if he miscalculated, he couldn't have been off by that much.

I used to be a christian so I know some theology, and I don't think the idea of an old earth is compatible with the theology. For example, there is the popular day-age theory, which says that the days in the beginning of genesis actually represent long ages, so for example 1 day could represent many millions of years. However, if that was true it would mean that many animals lived and died before adam and eve. But this is impossible, because according to the bible, death came into the world when god cursed the world after adam ate the apple. This isn't the only theory tho, there are many theories that try to connect the genesis account with evolution tho, which one do you believe in?

Also, how could all of those sciencists at the time of Issac Newton have had any idea about how old the earth was? I guess some features of geology point to an old earth but those could easily be explained away by the church until radiometric dating was invented. Also, charles darwin wasn't even born yet in the time of newton. If those scientists lived in a very christian atmosphere with no good alternative theory for the origin of the universe and evolution of life, im not surprised at all they subscribed to christianity.
Also, if you think that sciencist's opinion about the validity of christianity in particular is important, you should consider that the vast majority of sciencists today are non-christian. Some believe in a god yes, but most of them don't believe in the christian god.

To answer your question, no I don't think we should hold all christians accountable, but we can definitely hold the catholic church accountable, since they claim that the words of the pope are the words of god, so the pope can never be wrong. I mentioned galileo because you asked me for an example of where christianity discouraged sciencific research.

On the same note, I still do think that religion in general discourages scientific research' if you already think you have answers to a lot of questions (like the origin of the universe for example) what motivation do you have for pursuing and researching that question any further? Sure you can say some people will still have motivation because they want to find the details, but it's definitely less motivation than if you thought you didn' know the answer at all. because they are in the bible






[/quote]Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method. You can be a great scientist without believing in evolution. The person who invented the MRI is an accomplished scientist and a Christian creationist, for instance. He also says that a lot of his peers agree with him but are afraid to do so publicly.

[video src="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOM0v0dQnjI"][/video][/quote]Of course you can easily do science without believing in evolution, but the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution, probably because evolution is backed up by so much evidence that it's practically undeniable. It's so well established that even the catholic church has accepted it, even tho it's pretty much incompatible theologically with the bible.

Also, evolution has a lot to do with the scientific method' the scientific method is something like make observations>'make hypothesys>'test hypothesys>'analyze. Evolution employs this all the time. For example:

There is a huge experiment that has been going on since 1988. It started out with 12 identical populations of e.coli bacteria, and the genetic changed in each generation has been tracked ever since. This is an excerpt from the article:

"One of the significant adaptions occurred in one strain of E. coli. In general, this bacteria is known to not being able to use citrate in an aerobic environment as an energy source, even though some E.Coli that could do this had been detected agricultural or clinical settings. However, this strain, though ancestrally was unable to do so initially, developed a way transport citrate for use as an energy source. Even though all the ancestors already had a complete citric acid cycle, and thus could metabolize citrate internally for energy during aerobic growth, none of the 12 populations had a transporter for citrate. which was the only barrier to being able to use citrate for energy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment

I don't know if they did, but someone could have easily predicted that the bacteria will evolve a way to transport citrate, and they would have had their result from this experiment. That's the scientific method right there.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Jaeger »

drlegend wrote:
ovi12 wrote:Of course you can easily do science without believing in evolution, but the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution, probably because evolution is backed up by so much evidence that its practically undeniable. Its so well established that even the catholic church has accepted it.
That is your opinion. My opinion is that they believe in it not because they have done the research and concluded that it is true, but simply because its the popular thing among academics to believe in it and there is a large chance especially for young and aspiring scientists to be shunned by their peers if their beliefs regarding evolution and global warming and other issues differ from the Partys official policies.
Yeah thats my opinion, thats why wrote probably and didnt just state it as a fact. Im sure a lot of scientists who arent really in a field related to evolution just take the word of the biologists for it. But the biologists are the actual ones who do the research, and the vast majority do think evolution is true. If you dont agree with them that there is enough evidence for evolution that its practically undeniable, you would have to look up and examine the evidence yourself, I could tell you about the evidences I know but I am not a biologist and I cannot put all the evidence here in this aoe thread.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Jaeger »

drlegend wrote:
ovi12 wrote:Yeah thats my opinion, thats why wrote probably and didnt just state it as a fact. Im sure a lot of scientists who arent really in a field related to evolution just take the word of the biologists for it. But the biologists are the actual ones who do the research, and the vast majority do think evolution is true. If you dont agree with them that there is enough evidence for evolution that its practically undeniable, you would have to look up and examine the evidence yourself, I could tell you about the evidences I know but I am not a biologist and I cannot put all the evidence here in this aoe thread.
I am intelligent enough to realize that scientists are often little more than academic politicians mainly interested in status and money and would not risk their careers and reputation by denying the "truth" of evolution. Scientists get fired from their jobs merely for not believing in evolution. It is group think that has nothing to do with actual science. Maybe humans will in the future look back on todays believers in evolution and think of them the same way we think of ancient believers in a flat earth or the impossibility of flight.
So it seems like you dont believe in evolution. You must think then that all the evidence for evolution is either false or it better fits an alternate model/theory of life. How do you know that? Have you looked at the evidence of evolution compiled over decades by countless scientists and found it to be false, or do know of a model that better explains the data than the theory of evolution?
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
No Flag Mr. Pecksniff
Howdah
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mar 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Mr. Pecksniff »

ovi12 wrote:
drlegend wrote:I am intelligent enough to realize that scientists are often little more than academic politicians mainly interested in status and money and would not risk their careers and reputation by denying the "truth" of evolution. Scientists get fired from their jobs merely for not believing in evolution. It is group think that has nothing to do with actual science. Maybe humans will in the future look back on todays believers in evolution and think of them the same way we think of ancient believers in a flat earth or the impossibility of flight.
So it seems like you dont believe in evolution. You must think then that all the evidence for evolution is either false or it better fits an alternate model/theory of life. How do you know that? Have you looked at the evidence of evolution compiled over decades by countless scientists and found it to be false, or do know of a model that better explains the data than the theory of evolution?
You dont know what youre getting yourself into with this guy.
No Flag Mr. Pecksniff
Howdah
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mar 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Mr. Pecksniff »

drlegend wrote:I think natural selection that has been observed in a controlled environment is true, but I also think the idea that all life evolved from single-celled organisms millions of years ago can not rationally be considered a fact and to do so is no different than believing that magic is a fact.
Do you think there are any better explanations for the diversity of life?
No Flag Mr. Pecksniff
Howdah
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mar 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Mr. Pecksniff »

drlegend wrote:I really could care less about any of that. I just believe that the evolutionary explanation is simply a baseless wild guess and can''t or at least hasn''t been proven.
It''s hardly more baseless than the guesses you''ve been tossing around on these forums.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Goodspeed »

gibson wrote:
calmyourtits wrote:Are you the gibson from agecomm?

How are you? I recall a 20+ page discussion about religion via PM lol
Yes, and I cringe and want to run away and hide when I think about how naive and stupid I was at that age, particularly when I think about that discussion. Deep down inside I didnt believe what I was debating and did a shitty job defending it anyway.
Lol I knew youd come round. Good on you :)
Discussed it with your family? Parents can take stuff like that the wrong way '/
No Flag Mr. Pecksniff
Howdah
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mar 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Mr. Pecksniff »

drlegend wrote:Exactly faith in evolution isn''t any better than faith in "God did it."
I have no doubt that your arguments on this subject are extremely compelling.
No Flag johaggis
Crossbow
Posts: 21
Joined: May 3, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by johaggis »

gibson wrote:
johaggis wrote:Why would the burden of proof be on me for something that is intuitively wrong?
Youve completely missed my point, and thats why Ive deleted everything except your first sentence. If burning a cat was intuitively wrong, than you are absolutely correct. However thats what I was trying to drive at in the first place. Why is it wrong? Is it wrong because you feel like its wrong? Clearly, if Im burning the cat, I dont think its wrong. So its just my feeling that its not wrong vs your feeling that it is wrong and quite frankly, I dont give two shits and a rats ass what you think and am going to torture the cat anyway( For those of you who are just going to read this and then condemn me torturing a cat, this is an example. I personally do not gain pleasure from torturing animals, so see no reason to do so).
In your most recent post, you asked "who or what lay down that law?" I believe that was a large part of what I responded to. I was also trying to make sure we were on the same page in terms of moral realism, because I wanted to make sure your claim is not that morals simply dont exist, as a reason why the intuition doesnt matter.

As for your claim that its "my intuition vs your intuition," I have a two-part response here. The first one I already mentioned- if we cant agree on something as clear-cut as lighting cats on fire is wrong, there isnt much of a point in discussing morals, as we have fundamentally different understandings of the factors (cats, fire, and morality) involved. The second part is that if this is the intuition of, lets call him "Person A" I would be surprised to find out that this person is not a psychopath, as that is what the intuition seems to imply. I chose this case because it seems intuitive to people who have empathy and generally understandings of a distinction between right and wrong.

So basically, for the other intuition, it seems to me that either Person A simply doesnt understand the factors involved, be they the cat, fire, or what morality is in general. Its not wrong merely because I feel like its wrong. Its wrong because our personal gratification from the action does not justify the cats immense suffering and death. Again, if causing suffering for the sole purpose of pleasure is not intuitively wrong, then there really isnt a way for us to have a meaningful discussion of morals. We need a few points of reference to ground the discussion. I chose one that I felt is rather uncontested (again, outside of psychopaths). In other words, it doesnt seem to be merely "what I feel," but rather what is commonly accepted by moral agents.

Also, as I have a hunch this might come up, I do not believe intuitions alone can truly find the moral solution to complex cases, but I think they serve in simpler cases.
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Jaeger »

frycookofdoom wrote:
drlegend wrote:I think natural selection that has been observed in a controlled environment is true, but I also think the idea that all life evolved from single-celled organisms millions of years ago can not rationally be considered a fact and to do so is no different than believing that magic is a fact.
Do you think there are any better explanations for the diversity of life?
+1, evolution is currently the model that best fits the current available data
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
No Flag bugattivitesse
Skirmisher
Posts: 128
Joined: Mar 30, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by bugattivitesse »

[quote source="/post/10081/thread" timestamp="1432233589" author="@ovi12"][quote source="/post/10053/thread" timestamp="1432229226" author="@bugattivitesse"]The bible says nothing about the age of the earth. I think you will find that orthodox christians believe in an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, and accept evolution. The idea of a 6000 year old earth is flawed, and came from a 17th century preacher who took the genealogies and estimated how old the earth must have been. And to say that they simply didn't have enough research back then is just wrong. They knew the earth was much older. You are thinking of southern baptists or something, who reject evolution and an old earth based on their own ignorance.

A question for you since you keep on with Galileo. If Christians are supposed to live according to the Bible, and the Church at that time was persecuting him, not based on Biblical teaching, but based on their own opinions, should we accuse Christianity for his persecution?

My answer is of course not. We should judge a religion by its followers who follow it according to its own rules, not those who act ignoring them.

[/quote]How can adding up the genealogies be wrong? Even if he miscalculated, he couldn't have been off by that much.


The bible isn't meant to record everyone who lived in the course of it. Also, ages of death are provided seldomly, so is guessing the ages and adding up the genealogies we have the best way to calculate how old the earth is? Especially since its not necessary, shouldn't we just use the best scientific methods we have?

I used to be a christian so I know some theology, and I don't think the idea of an old earth is compatible with the theology. For example, there is the popular day-age theory, which says that the days in the beginning of genesis actually represent long ages, so for example 1 day could represent many millions of years. However, if that was true it would mean that many animals lived and died before adam and eve. But this is impossible, because according to the bible, death came into the world when god cursed the world after adam ate the apple. This isn't the only theory tho, there are many theories that try to connect the genesis account with evolution tho, which one do you believe in?

Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely' but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17) Here God threatens Adam with death. But...he doesn't explain what death is. This must of confused Adam, unless of course death did exist before the fall. The theory i find most likely is that when God says death, he is referring to creatures with a conscious, humans.

Also, how could all of those sciencists at the time of Issac Newton have had any idea about how old the earth was? I guess some features of geology point to an old earth but those could easily be explained away by the church until radiometric dating was invented. Also, charles darwin wasn't even born yet in the time of newton. If those scientists lived in a very christian atmosphere with no good alternative theory for the origin of the universe and evolution of life, im not surprised at all they subscribed to christianity.

Saying what might have happened isn't really relevant is it? There is no way to know for sure. The point of faith is that you don't believe in God because OF the science, you believe in him because of personal experience. Then you work to understand the compatibility between God and his creation. Christians believe that God is the ordainer and sustainer of science, so if we ever find a "contradiction", we should reexamine our interpretation of the passage.

Also, if you think that sciencist's opinion about the validity of christianity in particular is important, you should consider that the vast majority of sciencists today are non-christian. Some believe in a god yes, but most of them don't believe in the christian god.

To answer your question, no I don't think we should hold all christians accountable, but we can definitely hold the catholic church accountable, since they claim that the words of the pope are the words of god, so the pope can never be wrong. I mentioned galileo because you asked me for an example of where christianity discouraged sciencific research.


Thankfully the Catholic church has since changed.

On the same note, I still do think that religion in general discourages scientific research' if you already think you have answers to a lot of questions (like the origin of the universe for example) what motivation do you have for pursuing and researching that question any further? Sure you can say some people will still have motivation because they want to find the details, but it's definitely less motivation than if you thought you didn' know the answer at all. because they are in the bible

On the contrary, i love science probably more because i love the God who made it.





[/quote]
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by gibson »

calmyourtits wrote:
gibson wrote:Yes, and I cringe and want to run away and hide when I think about how naive and stupid I was at that age, particularly when I think about that discussion. Deep down inside I didnt believe what I was debating and did a shitty job defending it anyway.
Lol I knew youd come round. Good on you :)
Discussed it with your family? Parents can take stuff like that the wrong way '/
Yea, fortunately I come from a "more liberal" christian family who has always encouraged discussion about difficult topics and never shunned those in the family who do not believe what they believe. Unlike many "Christians" in the area that I live in, they realize that the parental love for a child isnt based off of a single belief that I hold. None of that child getting kicked out of the house that you find in r/atheism lol
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Goodspeed »

Nice. What are you up to right now? Studying?
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by iNcog »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Goodspeed »

No Flag Mr. Pecksniff
Howdah
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mar 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Mr. Pecksniff »

But reddit is just a festering hive of social liberal propaganda!
No Flag Mr. Pecksniff
Howdah
Posts: 1648
Joined: Mar 28, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Mr. Pecksniff »

drlegend wrote:
frycookofdoom wrote:But reddit is just a festering hive of social liberal propaganda!
*Tips fedora*

You keep on fighting against the stupid Christians, goy.
Good work, doctor! Gotta keep those deluded left wingers at bay!
Image
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by gibson »

calmyourtits wrote:Nice. What are you up to right now? Studying?
You could say studying. I don''t know if its like this everywhere, but at least at US colleges the first year or two are basically review of high school. So you could call it studying or showing up to class, browsing reddit/playing games/snapchatting all class, spending an hour a week on homework and not actually studying for anything. It''s a waste of time really, but necessary to get a degree.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by Goodspeed »

I don't know if its like this everywhere, but at least at US colleges the first year or two are basically review of high school.
Lol, high schools are getting seriously shitty.
How was your high school, looking back at it now? As in, the quality of it.
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

The Left's War on Christianity

Post by iNcog »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV