>>11144947>Your entire belief structure is based on some heavily edited writings from what we now know as "the agricultural revolution"-5 points for incorrect statement.
>Books that were written over hundreds of years by ordinary men and later edited and argued over.-5 points for continuing to elaborate on a false premise.
>The only proof you have of your religion are the books that were written by ancient ordinary men.-5 points for putting words into my mouth as your argument
>Books that are full of contradictions and supernatural phenomena that are ridiculous by today's understanding of nature.Today's understanding of nature is even more ridiculous than it used to be, idiot. NOBODY would believe in quantum tunneling in ancient times because it was too outlandish you would have to threaten them to get them to believe in the quantum tunneling religion.
>I can understand how religion is important to our culture and our history and our identity but it has no place in science.Wrong. Scientists do bad things sometimes without having a complete understanding of what they are doing first. Very BAD!
>Your understanding of what science is, is infantile and retarded and I feel sorry for you because you were probably indoctrinated fro ma very young age.Stop telling me what I know in order so you can feel like you won the argument on your own terms. You made a spelling mistake, two actually. Can you verify that for me? "fro ma" is that two spelling mistakes or am I wrong?
