Meaning I am not a more hardcore religious nut hence why I haven't and wont block you

Although, considering your background in Roman Catholicism I wouldn't be surprised if you thought everyone was a hardcore religious nut

Jesus fuck, dude, even I wasn't this insufferably petty and vindictive about it when I gave a fuck @Storin

get a perscription or some shit

Eh I don't care, im on sargons discord <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

Pardon his delay he was chalking up another Internet argument won on his chalkboard

If you say something silly I will dig into it that is all <:pepe:312704217028493312>

@Tiberius Do you think that anti-Trump types should believe otherwise? (Or at least not think he's the devil?)

I mean about athiesm and denying belief in god and shit

Well god isn't real homie

Its ok though

like, I was a shithead about it, to my own degree, but fuck me, this guy's going for the gold

I don't think the presupposition that religious people aren't inherently defective is silly but it's subjective

You wont get any 72 virgins <:pepe:312704217028493312>

Unless its 72 users on this discord

If they want to believe that way they are free to do so

I mean we've got you will need 71 more

As I said if you want to believe you can, but the moment you take it out of your door (including online) be ready for someone to call out that bullshit <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

But religious people *are* defective for belieiving in something by their own admission they cant prove its existence, as are the mentally insane who say they hear voices

Being wrong =/= being defective

Could you tip your fedora any lower

I'd rather phrase it as people have a right to voice their opinion or belief, just as much as someone else has the right to respond.

Not nearly as defective as devout atheists.

not that either of these rights are under unscrupulous attack at the moment, regarding religion

opinions on borders and immigration though are a different story

plenty of fights going on about that

or at least most of them claim

Furthermore stating that something does not exist because it is not observable is not exactly a valid argument atoms were not observable until very recently that does not mean they did not exist till very recently. We merely had no way of observing.

That is true they can voice their opinion as he has done, and I voiced why his beliefs are questionable, and you all voiced you didn't like that <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

No I was asked what I believe I said I believe X because Y and you sat there typing prove it

I voiced that you're being an impish cunt about it

No one said atoms absolutely existed until we saw them- that is entirely different from your god dude

We can prove their existence

I voiced I am not require to justify myself to you unless im trying to preach which I am not

Accurate. I would say "an impish cunt *with shit arguments*" but that's me.

Actually you're wrong the Greeks hypothesized that atoms existed long b4 we could observe them

Impish? Is Ben Shapiro Here?

Link that claim <:pepe:312704217028493312>

His Wife's Boyfriend's Girlfriend is a Doctor

http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/history-atom-ancient-greeks/

His name was Democritus you can find it in any science history textbook