You have an anti scientific stance on everything. Why should anyone trust a syllable you utter about science?

1. Substantiate the things you say scientists claim.

2. Refute those claims with scientific evidence.

That would mean your arguments are valid. But you never do either of those things. You scream "scientists say this!!" without ever showing evidence. And then you say "scientists have shown this false!!"" without ever showing evidence.

Meanwhile you believe in a book that says Earth was formed in 6 days, and people can be brought back to life.

FUCK. RIGHT. OFF.

Paedophilia and homosexuality are two entirely different attractions. Is a banana a computer?

Use your own logic. Supply and demand. People are forced to use cars busses and trains for lack of an accessible alternative, which is a result of a political choice to continue to back fossil fuel.

If you seriously believe this and aren't just playing melodramatic troll, as usual, then perhaps being you, should be a crime, and carrying you to term, should be punishable by abortion.

People lie. What is your point, if you actually have one?

His point wasn't about abortion. It was about at which point a human entity begins to be culpable for sin. If we take your view, it is at conception.

It's a very poor argument to say: Obama bought a beach front house, therefore global warming is a myth.

Very poor, indeed.

Rhyme repels,

By sitting here on the precipice,

of a dumping ground for expelling a stinky sphincter's detritus.

He relieves his urge by leaving a scourge of lyric excrements,

And straight up pulls up without wiping off the left-on shit ...

What was snobby about it? This is a debate site, where we weigh arguments on the accuracy of their content. I'm not quite sure how stating that it would be difficult to debate with you because you are reducing things to an unsuitable level is snobbish.

But, I certainly don't mean to come across snobbish.

Perhaps you'd like to respond to the content of what I said though? Particularly the portion I framed as a question, regarding the nature of "God", should we assume he has unlimited foresight, knowledge and power.

So you are saying the grand "ol Secular USA you support and love so much, is less civilized and economically and socially successful than say ancient Israel?

HOGWOSH!

Ancient Israel killed Jeebus, sure ...

If Jeebus has been born in modern Netherlands, he wouldn't even have gotten arrested for preaching "feed the homeless" and "love the needy". In fact he probably would have become their Prime Minister. Maybe won a few elections. Socialized a few people.

Maybe Jeebus wouldn't even have been persecuted if he lived in the modern good 'ol USA .. unless he was Middle Eastern of course (which he was) .. and Brown (which we was) .. and spoke some foreign Aramaic language (which he did) ... and believed in some radical form of collective charity (which he did) ... and preached resistance toward the status quo for the benefit of the poor (which he did) ... and was an emigre from his own country (which he was)

Ooopsies ...

Jesus, if we take him by your assessments of the planet and its people nowadays, is a modern day commie brown-skinned middle-eastern revolutionary immigrant heretic :/

Awkward