RE: Non-muslim terriorist kills 84 in Norway.
August 4, 2011 at 2:29 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2011 at 2:34 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: . . . you would put a question mark at the end of a question.
Nah the exclamation point was just fine, like you would know in the first place, you purposely quote people out of context.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Why would I have continued after that? It was pretty much, "science hates religion." Get yourself a binky, Stat and get on with the debate.
Again, you didn’t quote me correctly. It was science hates religion but arose from religion, hence the use of the terms PARADOX and AS STRANGE AS IT MAY SEEM. Is that really that hard to understand?
(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Perfect logic, as always.
I just regurgitated your same reasoning back at you, if you don’t like it what does that say about your original reasoning? Lol.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Whatever you say.
Take a course in logic, you will be taught exactly what I said, Ad Hominem is a last ditch desperation that proves nothing.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: You then said just science in like ten posts! Fuck your op. Follow the goddamn debate without slipping up so much and this shit won't fucking happen. Type what you mean and mean what you type. I wasn't being dishonest. You're a prick for suggesting it when it is obvious you said science in other posts and only resorted to your op because you knew you had done so. You see how something as simple as rereading your posts can avoid all kinds of confusion.
It’s called telescoping. If I am writing a piece of work on “Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists” I would refer to them as this in my introduction and then it is completely legitimate to only refer to them as “terrorists” later in the work in order to be efficient. This whole time it has been very clear I have been addressing modern science, it was in my OP and all of my quotes were referring to it. You are just grasping at more straws.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: I imagine that you do not read much, do you? When do you think the first census was taken? Now, don't be a lazy asshole. Actually Google census and find the oldest reference of a census being taken. I'll wait here. While you're at it, think about where your bullshit Inquisition death toll statistics came from.
How on earth would a census have anything to do with science (modern science) arising from religion? Red herring.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Get fucked.
Mature.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Why would I? You made the claim.
Using the word battle just implied you had actually responded with some quotes. Yes, I made the claim, and I supported it.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A History of Statistics, 17th Century. Have fun with all the links.
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/verduin/stathist/sh_17.htm
Yet science (modern science) and religion are mentioned in there not once.
![[Image: Red%2BHerring.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-k7RYJbWgXbk%2FTWTwx2zagII%2FAAAAAAAAAKE%2FgBZNm_1L3p8%2Fs1600%2FRed%252BHerring.gif)