I'm prompting the absence of something.
This sentence makes no sense. The word you meant to use is "purporting," but you're too stupid to know how big words work and you hope that stringing a bunch of them together will make you seem smart.
I'm not forcing you to do anything against your will, neither am I saying you have to believe X or what have you.
You are literally saying that it's better to mock someone who asks you to participate in a table prayer, because participating would be subjecting yourself to religious oppression. That makes you sound like a fedora-wearing asspie who doesn't understand that our society is built upon silly rituals and tries to exploit them for a false sense of superiority.
When I'm in a religious debate, I use the religion against itself, and I inform people of mistakes that their beliefs hold, NOT the mistakes in their belief based on my personal preference. Just so we're clear, mathematics isn't an ideology.
Busting out in handicap-laughter because someone asks you to hold hands and bless the food isn't mathematics, it's autism.
If you apply it the other way it doesn't work either, theology isn't mathematics because gods by definition are immeasurable. So you're still stupid.
What the problem here is that you've failed to read many of my posts which identify both atheists and theists as having negative outcomes.
Another sentence where you try to sound smart but you make absolutely no sense. You can't identify "atheists and theists as having negative outcomes." Nouns can't have outcomes, because nouns aren't causes. You could say "atheism and theism as having negative outcomes" or even "being an atheist and theist," and that would make sense. But this is just another instance of you stringing together words you don't fully understand to make a laughably stupid post.
I'm consistently playing devil's advocate -- I think modern day biology is a fantastic element of learning,
You aren't playing devil's advocate when you start your argument by saying prayer makes you guffaw uncontrollably, and follow it up with a moronic, fedora-inspired rant against religion in general.
--
You misused the em dash, good job handicap.
I think modern day biology is a fantastic element of learning,
Again, trying to sound smart. This one is almost cringe-worthy because you probably thought it sounded like a really intelligent way to say "I think biology is interesting," when what you managed to say was nothing but inane drivel.
Biology is not an element of learning, is a subject of study. An element is the basics that compose something, so an element of learning would be studying, reading, or paying attention in class. I really hate how stupid you are, and it makes me want to find our flickr album where you must keep thousands of captioned pictures of yourself wearing a fedora and suit jacket.
but I believe we've still MUCH more to learn about how organisms work. I personally believe evolultion occured, but I never use it to argue against someone's religious beliefs.
Because that would make sense. Then again most of your arguments IRL seem to consist of "HAHAHAHAHA UR PRAYING LOL !!! XD Y WOULD U PRAY DONT U NO MATHEMATICS! ?"
I never use scientific theory (aside from the earth not being flat and the sun not revolving around the earth) against someone's religious beliefs. I use fact based on the only perception I have.
Since when is the Earth being round a theory? Like what the hell? Do you expect someone to come around and disprove the roundness of the Earth in the future?
I do not go out and push people around for having beliefs that differ from mine. I tend to retaliate more than anything, but I do in fact bring up the subject, which is often seen as me being pretentious or oppressive. I've stated in the past I'm open to intellectual debate, not pissing competitions or pointless banter.
No, you little stuff. If someone asks you pray with them and you bust out laughing you aren't retaliating to oppression, you're mocking a sect of society and making yourself look like a real asperger stuff in the process. I can't take you seriously when you claim to want "intellectual debate" when you try so desperately to sound smart that you misuse easy words, and when you doubt that the Earth is round.
Take from that what you will, but assuming hypocrisy based on argumentative behaviors is so antiproductive is hilarious.
Hypocrisy can easily be considered an "argumentative behavior," although the phrase you were actually going for was
a tendency to argue.
If you had nothing to question your beliefs, you would be nothing but sheep -- and I hope that that isn't the case.
That doesn't make any sense. I think you're the only one who questions whether the Earth is round or not, everyone else accepts it without question, so are they sheep?
Oh, and I can assure you I'm open about this in public. Stop making stuff up to further an argument.
Yeah, I seriously wouldn't doubt if you exploded into laughter out of a fallacious sense of intellectual dominance of people who are in reality, smarter than you and also not autistic.
Oh, yeah, because your statistic on what atheists believe is definitely true. Instead of getting on my ass for making reasonable assumption and presenting fact, how about you reread what you're constantly spewing and assume you may be in the wrong.
Again, based on the rest of your post it's really hard to take this seriously.
Again, try playing devil's advocate, instead of being incredibly stubborn about your belief system.
What the forget?
Why would the person you're arguing with want to play devil's advocate? Who would they argue with? Do you want them to just agree with you so that it doesn't shake your belief in flat-earth theory?
Also, though religion is very old, its original principles (polytheism and the like) are no longer practiced, yet ancient literature is what fueled all modern day religious beliefs. Take, for example, the fact that the story of Noah's Ark was adapted from the poem The Epic of Giglamesh, written many many years before your Christ was born.
Wow a kind-of real argument. Too bad it's buried underneath a mountain of stuff.
There's a difference between addressing something and bombarding someone with nothing but useless ad hominem.
Like openly mocking people in public for a tradition as old as history?
If you've got an argument which you can speak of otherwise, go for it, but I tend not to get on someone's ass if they know what they're talking about.
Ok.