You clearly put no thought into your comments, and I would consider “yeah well you belive in a guy floating that killed him son lol u so dum" to be an appropriate response. But I’ve got a few minutes, and I'm bored with our other troll, so I figured I'd give you a more detailed comeback.
“I'll be straight to the point.”
Not a good sign when you open with a lie. Straight to what point? You open by saying you're going to make a point and get straight to it. But there was no point. The closest thing you had to a point was “one side believes in god, I don’t know what the other side believes”.
“All arguments about wether religion is real or not boil down to this.”
Until you have actually examined any of the arguments on religion, telling us what “all” arguments about religion boil down to is premature.
“One side (theologians) belive a higher power (god) created everything.”
A “theologian” is not the same thing as a “theist”. Although this does possibly explain your previous sentence. Most theological “arguments” are posed against an imaginary atheist with no actual views beyond “me no believe in floating guy”. If you think of the theological “arguments” as actual arguments about the truth of religion, let alone "all" arguments, that would explain why you have a cartoonish view of the opposing position.
“The other side (atheists) who reject religion in general belive that, wait.”
It wouldn’t have been that difficult to find out what atheists believe before commenting on it. There are books or websites (like this one) you could read to find out what views are common among atheists. Or you could ask. Saying that atheists look dumb because they do not have any arguments that you’ve ever bothered to read, sounds kinda dumb.
“You guys haven't explained how matter, atoms, electrons protons and neutrons were created.”
You do know that the Big Bang was originally proposed by a theist right?
“Were they always here? Come on now that's downright unscientific.”
And yet in the next sentence you claim that they could not have been created. Are you saying that matter can be created or that it cannot? You appear to be taking two opposing positions at the same time.
“Newtons third law states energy is neither created or destroyed.”
Newton’s Third Law states “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.” The “argument” you are trying to plagiarize here already misquotes the First Law of Thermodynamics, and you actually misquoted the misquote. Where the f*ck did you get Newton from?
“But, how did it "appear" is the first place?”
Matter didn’t “appear”. It “formed”.
I don't want any comebacks like "yeah well you belive in a guy floating that killed him son lol u so dum"
How about just “lol u so dum”? I think that pretty much covers it.
“Because to be honest you atheists are looking pretty dumb if you assume that one day things just "poof" existed.”
So I guess you haven’t read Genesis 1 either?
