Life / Is Poland hostile to supporting families and stay united? DNA test. [11]

I understand it would be the mother claiming you may be the father. For example, she may want you to pay alimony claiming you are the father. Then you tell her or a judge - "I have no problem paying alimony as long as I do paternity test." If they agree, you are covered. If they don't agree, you are covered too because legally you cannot become a father without a proof, especially that you want to have a proof. I don't see much problem with that.

Life / Is Poland hostile to supporting families and stay united? DNA test. [11]

"Private paternity tests, depending on the laboratory, cost from around PLN 600-700 to even PLN 2,000. The average price of a high-quality DNA test for private purposes is around PLN 1,300-1,500."

So I would get such a private paternity test and then you are fully covered, stress-free. You cannot force the other person to behave in a certain way, but when you have 100% proof you are not the father, they can do nothing about it and you are free of your worries.

Life / Is Poland hostile to supporting families and stay united? DNA test. [11]

I haven't looked into the laws, but a quick overview suggests that you cannot be forced to admit that you are a father without sufficient evidence. If I was you, I would definitely not sign a birth certificate unless DNA test is performed. You can always say that you have no problem signing the document, but need time to make sure you are the father. That's the only way it can work in a civilized country like Poland, correct? :

Life / Is Poland hostile to supporting families and stay united? DNA test. [11]

Yes, but what is your point or question? To me, when you add progressiveness to anything, it will destroy what's good if given enough time. I guess that's what's happening in Poland because people think that the best way is to stay in the middle and add this or that to spice things up.

Genealogy / Birth Certificate for parent [4]

How about the church / cemetery records; they may lead you to the diseased persons' relatives. I'd also give another shot and talk to your aunts as they may be the only way to find out the facts.

USA, Canada / Censorship and violation of 1st Amendment in US [147]


Maybe you could name one that is good for at least 80% of the people who voted for Trump. Tariffs give people more inflation / higher prices and rare Earth minerals from Ukraine give people nothing.

USA, Canada / Censorship and violation of 1st Amendment in US [147]


They surely were. Both extremes tend to be brainless. I'm not for or against Trump; his actions / policies are what matters. If they are good for the people, I support him; otherwise, I don't. This is the only logical conclusion a thinking person may come to. Those who support him regardless of his actions lose the sight of the forest.

For now, this is the situation. We get a rotten carrot, they get the meat. MAGA crowd cheering to that is silly. It should be the other way around after they have been robbing us for so many decades.

USA, Canada / Censorship and violation of 1st Amendment in US [147]

The media pumps meaningless sh*t that excites the brainless MAGA folks and robs Americans at the same time. Trump's "deals" only benefit a few billionaires and corporations.

USA, Canada / Censorship and violation of 1st Amendment in US [147]

America needs big wins for the people, not for corporations. Banning a reporter or gay flag is meaningless for the working class. It only looks good on Fox news and is cheap entertainment for brainless MAGA folks. How is it going to help people pay their bills?

Who mows your yard or fixes your or your neighbor's roof for cheap? Immigrants. Trump's actions would make you pay much more for the same if immigrants are banned.

What would be the benefit for the American people if Ukraine gave the US 500 Billion worth of rare minerals? Who would benefit - you? Me? No - Bill Gates, Musk, Zuckenbergs and other capitalists. They would still pay 5% taxes as opposed to small businesses that pay up to 35%, with an average of 25%.

How about this - if Ukraine gives the US 500B worth of minerals, deduct 500B from the Social Security or other people taxes? Of course, Trump won't do it because it would help the little folks who voted for him. The only beneficiaries would be big corporations, again.

Look at the bigger picture - how Trump's actions are going to help regular Americans? For now, his actions only bring more inflation and more wealth to his billionaire buddies.

USA, Canada / Censorship and violation of 1st Amendment in US [147]

Closing the border or draining the swamp are relevant matters, but banning a reporter or some flag or something like that shows weakness. Use your biggest power in important matters only.

USA, Canada / Censorship and violation of 1st Amendment in US [147]

The more meaningless executive privileges Trump uses, the less relevant he will become and the more people will start not liking it. You've got the power, use it where it makes sense; otherwise, it shows your weakness.

USA, Canada / Censorship and violation of 1st Amendment in US [147]

The Associated Press or NPR have been as relevant and truthful as "Trybuna Ludu" in Poland back in the commie times. I'd personally not ban them, but really nothing is missed by news readers.

Work / Working as a writer for an English speaking Polish Catholic church [4]

The surest way is to find churches that offer services in Poland in English and contact them one by one. You may suggest that your English work could be translated (automatically) to Polish and that way a Polish priest or community could benefit from your work too.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]


If you apply the same rule to your own posts, you'd have to retract 90% of them because you are unable to prove them. The only ones you might be able to prove are your personal experiences that you have kept a record of (at least a photograph, a government document, or a video; a family witness statement would not apply as you said).

When you write that immigrants are "scums" then I can personally find a few immigrants who are not scum = your statement is a lie. When you say that Biden is a fraud, you cannot prove this statement either. When you say that black people are criminals, I'll give you a dozen who have cleaner criminal record than yourself. We can move on to your each claim and refutate it one by one. This would be a conversation from hell and a sane person would not engage in it.

So the next time you are about to post something, it would be nice if you Preview the message first to determine if you can prove what you're about to post. If not, perhaps it's better to cancel it. Unless you want to become an adult and stop the silly questions to prove something that should be obvious even to a low-IQ teenager.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

I see it as a learning experience. I respect Novi for his opinions and I learned from him too; he writes what he believes and that's fine with me even if we don't agree on most points, especially religion.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]


But what you suggested makes no sense because it's impossible to prove or refute God's existence. It has nothing to do with credibility. If you ask for the impossible, your question would've been dismissed in a court of law.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

Ok, so your legal standards are pretty high.

Still, regarding proof or evidence. If you keep asking for evidence and proof, the other side may demand the same and you will not be able to provide.

You CANNOT refute the existence of God, so why do you demand a proof of God's existence? It would only be fair to demand a proof of something only if you are able to refute it.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

So if the wife is found dead in her home with a bullet in her head and:

1. The gun was owned by the husband.
2. A neighbor heard him yelling at his wife before a gun shot was fired.
3. The husband denies he killed his wife.

Then the husband will not go to jail because the incident was not video recorded and there was not enough proof of the husband's wrongdoing?

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]


What if the wife's neighbors testify that they have witnessed the verbal abuse of the husband ((ie. heard him yelling at her)? Would that be enough proof for the court?

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

Let me try another way ("YOU" = an atheist). Imagine you are a father and a dirty bloke rapes your young girl and cuts off her tits. She survived. The police tracked the guy down and he is now on trial. You, as a father, has been given a chance to talk to the rapist. Below is a conversation.

The question is - do you, as an atheist, find this conversation likely? If not, why not?

BTW - a priest raping a child is not a Christian; he is an atheist. True Christian would never rape a child. I hope we're finally on the same page.

YOU: Why did you rape my child, you piece of s*it !?
BLOKE: As an atheist, I create my own moral standards. I just like fuking young girls and hurt them extra. I don't see anything wrong with that.
YOU: Bulls*t! How could you do it to my innocent child?! I'm going to kill you muthefuker!
BLOKE: Chill out, moron. Don't you know that "no God = no sin"? We are in the same team.
YOU: But you raped my child!!!
BLOKE: So? I like raping children. I have no moral standards other than my own. What's your problem dude!
YOU: F*k you!
BLOKE: That's all you've got? Get real, motherfuker! We live by our own medicine. Don't you say you don't like that; are you a Christian now?
YOU: I swear to God I will kill you!

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

I think a Dem scum would say about the same, but would surely omit the "God" part.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

He clearly refers to God as Christians know it. It's in the context of his belief in God. It's not just a random statement:

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

In the last days, Trump publicly said multiple times, quote: "'I was saved by God"

Is he a lunatic or a genius?

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

A priest is a human born with sinful nature because of the original sin. A priest who rapes kids will face the consequences and you're right they lie they truly believe in God. Not all cops are good cops; maybe half of them are not. There are many pedophile teachers, but parents still send their kids to school.


So the system works as intended. What has God to do with that? God gave priests and all of us the 10 commandments. Some people choose to follow them, but most don't.


Teachers raping kids are proof of what then - that education is useless? We need to keep the standards the same. If a priest rapes a kid, you assume that the church and God are evil; same should apply to a teacher raping kids. We can go further - if a father is a rapist, his child should go to jail too?


A non-believer sets his own standards about what's right and wrong. That is the only logical conclusion because he doesn't believe in divine laws. If so, a rapist sets his own standards about what's ok to f*k or not. If by his standards it's ok to rape a kid, why judge them? They don't follow the 10 commandments so in their world it's ok to rape. Why would you set the Godly standards to atheists?


A true Christian (not all priests are true Christians) would not rape kids. But an atheist could as I wrote above. Due to the original sin, we live in an evil world. People and nature are corrupted.


My proof that God (or "Creator") exists is that humans and all living creatures combined would have been unable to build the Earth and the universe from scratch on their own. Even if we gave them 90000000 trillion years to do that. If you don't think that's proof enough, the conversation is over indeed as we won't be able to agree on this crucial point.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

You either have a free will or not. People have been given power to rule over the Earth - we either can make our own decisions and be responsible for that or not.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]


We have to agree on one point - who created the universe? You can call it Creator, others believe in UFO, I call Him God. But for sure, we can establish that humans didn't build the Earth and the universe, correct? If so, there must have been some much higher force than us who built it. I really hope you would accept this as 100% evidence.


From an atheist's point of view, we are all fertilizers after death. But I believe we (our souls) live forever. That's why, to me, it doesn't matter what happens during 80 years of a human life. Whether you were a king or a slave, you'll disappear shortly. If Hitler didn't kill 50 millions back then, 90% of them would've been dead now from natural causes anyway.

Hitler and other people in power are the creation of other people's decisions. Who put Hitler in charge? The German people, not God. Their decisions had terrible consequences. As we know, some prominent Germans were killed as they opposed to Hitler, but it was too little, too late.


God gives life and takes life. It's not a murder. A murder applies when a human kills another human.

The trial has lasted for 40 years. Noah has been building the ark for 40 years and has been warning people who laughed at him that if they don't change their ways, God would wipe them out. And He did.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

Since God knows the future, we humans cannot fully understand His ways, as the Bible clearly affirms.

What if the child who fell to his death would have become Adolf 2.0, responsible for the deaths of millions of other babies? Or what if the child would have endured years of sexual abuse by his father?

In either case, that child would get to heaven.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]

It wasn't for my post to stir up religious discussions. Christians/believers repeat this prayer that starts with:

Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended to the dead".

Note that it says: "believe" (not "know"). If we had 100% proof aka X-ray, there would be no need to believe as we would just know. It's like knowing exam questions and answers before taking an exam - what would be point?

It also says: "Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed."

Hopefully the difference is clear. If you want a 100% proof, there's no effort on your part at all. If you don't want to believe, that's fine, but the goal of my post was not to MOCK on top of that.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]


I was referring to Barney who refereed to Jesus in relation to Gaza deaths. In Gaza, Jesus exists only in up to 2% of households, so I didn't get the point. He probably meant Mohamed.

Off-Topic / God and Religion Talk [278]


Only 2% of Palestinians are Christians. Same applies to Jews living in Gaza.