zapatos

You didn't.

Science at its best!

LOL!

I suppose science has already disproved life on other planets and planets in other galaxies since we've failed to find any evidence for them. Perhaps one day you can post something other than 'life sucks'.

Interesting. When people claim that religion contributes to things like radicalism, homophobia, terrorism, etc., you tend to dismiss their claims by suggesting that people have those tendencies anyway, and if they didn't blow things up in the name of religion they would blow things up for other reasons. It would follow then that perhaps religion is not the cause of humanitarianism, but that those people would be humanitarians whether religion existed or not. To repeat Phi's request, do you have any evidence that it is "religion" that is making the contribution, and that without it, those humanitarian acts would not have occurred?

What types of contributions are you referring to?

"Psychiatry does not exist" "Schizophrenia does not exist" "a psychiatrist simply says you're nuts, gives you medication, and ruins your relationship with family and friends - forever labelled as insane."

You've been attacking psychiatrists and Psychiatry since the OP. I questioned your motive but did not attack it. I also questioned the logic and rationality in your posts.

I thought it was because...

For you to think that psychiatrists have a goal of curtailing the lives of patients rather than trying to help them shows how far out of touch you are.

Why? Because anyone who doesn't think like you is mentally ill? https://www.space.com/22758-mars-colony-volunteers-mars-one.html

Perhaps he is referring to the following where 58-71 and 90-103 are pulled out to keep the table from being nearly twice as wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_tabl e

Just because psychiatry didn't work for you is no reason to lie about psychiatrists. You are not being rational.

Whose goal do you believe it to be?

To have any hope of winning over others, you really need to quit complaining and focus your efforts on convincing people that your IDEAS are correct. Answer questions, address concerns, provide additional data, work hard. If you are unable to convince anyone you are correct, then you have either not provided a convincing argument, or you are wrong.

Given that you are not concerned with historical accuracy, that your response to the reason for gathering this information was vague at best, and that you are showing unapologetic bigotry, answering any of your questions seems risky.

Depends. Can you rank those troops for us based on their quality of life prior to being used as suicide bombers? Can I ask why you are hunting for the best triggering mechanism for a suicide vest? Sounds like we are getting into dangerous territory.

What do you mean by that?

Not in the 1860's. Another trigger in his other hand?

I think Endy's point was that you have to be alive to clinch something in your hand. If you die the hand muscle would relax and the bomb would explode.

There would be no way to do it. The Civil War ended in 1865 and dynamite was patented in 1867.

If there once wasn't life and there now is life, what else is there but abiogenesis?

"The law" dictates manners?!?! Please, just stop.

Well that was rather vulgar. Off with his head!

That seems a pretty bold statement. Do you have a citation?