zapatos

Did you find it offensive?

Edit: It's Monday for me too. Post deleted.

If someone asked me to come up with the two ways most likely to make society truly unhappy, I would have said to allow everything, or to allow nothing.

Which side of the moon is the bright side?

Which side is that?

A website where you enter your homework questions and other people do the work for you.

You keep throwing out random, unrelated thoughts. This is getting old.

Then why did you say resistance is futile and that they already run the joint? I've got to admit I'm not following your argument.

They run you? In what way is it better?

Is hope without religion a 'better' version of hope? People who believe are not "making things up".

I'm not sure what that means or why you are telling me that. Can you please try again?

People who are only practicing charity for fear of retribution if they don't would almost certainly stop if religion ended. Although in my mind that doesn't say much for those people.

I'm not sure it would be negative either. I just want to make the point that most people don't find religious charity to be a bad thing. I don't think anyone was suggesting that killing people who practice Christian charity is appropriate.

You seem to be taking this personally. I suspect that people who run missions and provide help to the needy would do so whether religion existed or not. I for one know many people who are charitable to others and are not religious. Saying that the world would be better off without religion is not the same as saying religion is all bad; only that on net it is a negative.

If sodium causes retention of fluid, then why urinate more often? That would seem to indicate higher sodium would reduce frequency of urination for any given level of fluid intake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_Jack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack

Citation please.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=jack

You said you were going to be scientific, so please do so. Values are not ingrained in our hearts. Let's be specific and accurate in our descriptions. The heart is a muscle and it does not house values.

I just gave my part. What else in particular do you want to know?

To me it seems fairly obvious that science supports the worldview that there is absolutely no evidence that any God exists.

Since not all theists share the same worldview, and not all atheists share the same worldview, and there are probably as many worldviews as there are people, I suspect you will need to define a specific 'worldview' to discuss if you want this to go anywhere.

No

You don't have to: http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-540-lactase.aspx?activeingredientid=540

Because I was left speechless by the speed and distance you were able to move the goalposts from one post to the next, while failing to provide any support or meaningful arguments. You started with: "I don't think a world without religion would be possible... A world without religion would be a world without life..." After being trivially proved wrong you completely changed direction and claimed that the earliest life had certain properties that evolved into religion: "...but there was never life without the properties that evolved into religion..." Finally, after being asked to provide a list of those properties in bacteria you moved onto a complete dodge and another utterly meaningless claim: "I have no idea. Evolution works via cause and effect and is a continuous process so there must have been properties which enabled the evolution/development of that what we call 'religion'." You may as well have claimed that at approximately 1,000,000 years after the Big Bang the universe contained properties that enabled Chopin to one day compose The Minute Waltz while scratching his ass with his left hand. It may be true but it tells us absolutely nothing and has nothing to do with whether or not life is possible without religion.