Bible. .. I'm surprised by the amount of rape. Maybe thats why they get children to read it at Sunday school, so that they're normalised by the idea of it when the priest Bible I'm surprised by the amount of rape Maybe thats why they get children to read it at Sunday school so that they're normalised idea when priest
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (1052)
[ 1052 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
146 comments displayed.
#1 - maidenmk
Reply +290
(03/18/2012) [-]
I'm surprised by the amount of rape. Maybe thats why they get children to read it at Sunday school, so that they're normalised by the idea of it when the priest's come after them.
#3 to #1 - thekitsune **User deleted account**
-50
has deleted their comment [-]
#8 to #3 - memebutt
Reply +57
(03/18/2012) [-]
Implying religion=christianity*
#775 to #8 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Implying Christianity=child molestation
#5 to #3 - froghole
Reply +3
(03/18/2012) [-]
if by religion you mean specifically catholics then yeah
#416 to #3 - thekitsune **User deleted account**
-17
has deleted their comment [-]
#479 to #416 - vishnapalm
Reply +3
(03/19/2012) [-]
Implying that all of fj is anti-religion when it's actually just the 2% who post **** load of atheist and anti-religion crap while the rest just don't say anything cause they're so tired of people from both sides bitching.
#501 to #479 - somestranger
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
^^^ This man gets it.   
gif unrelated
^^^ This man gets it.
gif unrelated
#649 to #501 - professorpikachu
Reply +4
(03/19/2012) [-]
well ****. that was pointless gif.
#1069 to #501 - jaxonnn
Reply +2
(03/19/2012) [-]
Spoiler
#739 to #501 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
yay i waisted 5 minutes of my life
#821 to #479 - thekitsune **User deleted account**
-2
has deleted their comment [-]
#697 to #1 - SemiAnon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
#573 to #1 - praxidike
Reply +12
(03/19/2012) [-]
#2 to #1 - twiztidxson
Reply +58
(03/18/2012) [-]
#29 - skuser
Reply +56
(03/18/2012) [-]
#43 to #29 - pathofchaos
Reply -65
(03/18/2012) [-]
Really it is all a trick. Only Christians see god non believers don't. We would tell you the secret but it makes us laugh when you say he doesn't exist.
#50 to #43 - sebbiechan
Reply +17
(03/18/2012) [-]
Says he exists.

Never show himself to skeptics.
#365 to #50 - pathofchaos
Reply -16
(03/19/2012) [-]
Why would you? its probably more fun to watch people bicker I mean come on we all laugh at troll arguments when were not in them. Hes god he can do as he pleases.
#380 to #365 - sebbiechan
Reply +13
(03/19/2012) [-]
He sounds like a prick.
#402 to #380 - pathofchaos
Reply -17
(03/19/2012) [-]
If you were all powerful what would you do? I bet all of these end of the world schemes and crazy people is god giving them visions to **** with us. Yes yes science states that this this and this. happens because of this... Well what if 10 seconds ago it wasnt and god was like meh i want it this way.. People tend to forget the scope of all power... over everything even time... God can engineer things to work a certain way because he can... I just wish he let magic be the one and not science.. it would be twenty times cooler If I could make a fireball by saying some words over making fire with a fuel of some sort and a way to project it like a flamethrower...
#408 to #402 - sebbiechan
Reply +8
(03/19/2012) [-]
If I was all powerful, I'd do something worthy of such power.

pic unrelated.
#507 to #408 - pathofchaos
Reply -12
(03/19/2012) [-]
Creating a race and planet isn't noteworthy? which mind you said planet has had many noteworthy accomplishments which by being their creator all of that goes to you? Only thing we need to determine is.. what if their are different gods with different creations scattered about, and this is all just one giant game of civilization or something...? Note: my captcha is 60+9 Win....
#543 to #507 - sebbiechan
Reply +3
(03/19/2012) [-]
About the whole race and planet thing, if he had any competence at all he wouldn't have had to hit the reset button and start over (the biblical flood)
#971 to #402 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
You're either very stupid or trolling.
#694 to #402 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
All your doing is filling the unknown with God. And as soon as that is contradicted, you say "God wanted it that way".
When you do that you are creating an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Its the same when you say, "God can do it, because he is God and he can."
#1198 to #694 - anon
Reply 0
(03/20/2012) [-]
Your dealing with a god. that's how it works. Another person who doubts all power.... yes anything and everything happens because it was made that way to happen. Science can explain something. Just because hes god doesn't make it like everything cant be explained. But science is so limited. We live because are hearts beat. if it wasn't made that way then we would simply live another way and that way would be the 100% true way. we used to blame the wind, and seasons on god. but simply because we learned a few things why is it instantly not god doing those things. Finding out how something works doesn't mean that a god is behind it. It just means we are learning and advancing. which I think is our purpose simply to advance. See how far we go. Yes its unfalsifiable. its a god ultimate power. over time and space. life and death. and peoples expression for proving he doesn't exist is because we invented a thought process? we invented a set of rules to judge the physical, and near physical. Which mind you cant stand to the glory of an invincible being with all the power in the universe to control every aspect of everything? Nah. prove what you want. I'm not about to piss off the strongest being ever...
#250 to #43 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account**
+4
has deleted their comment [-]
#667 to #43 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
There's a christian conspiracy? That makes your point more believable.
#335 to #43 - maxismahname
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
dude i'm a christian and i have no idea what you just ******* said.
#601 to #29 - whiteyswag
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Faith
#879 to #29 - hoifoichoi
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
oh man, I havent laughed like that for a long time
#881 to #879 - skuser
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
I'm glad to know bro.
#1192 to #29 - kylejp
Reply 0
(03/20/2012) [-]
because that like saying something is true, why is it not false.... your logic is flawed.
#1194 to #1192 - skuser
Reply 0
(03/20/2012) [-]
#74 to #29 - drphoenixwright
Reply +20
(03/18/2012) [-]
#520 - asgardian
Reply +54
(03/19/2012) [-]
Christianity is faith based. Therefore I have come to understand that    
1. Christians, why waste your time trying to prove it.   
2. Atheists, why waste your time trying to disprove it.   
   
Even the great Sheldon Cooper doesn't claim God doesn't exist, he's one of the few smart enough to know that we can't know, at least not now.   
   
I will however say that organized religion has been the cause of much hatred and senseless death, more so than any other sociological factor combined. But that's a different matter in itself.
Christianity is faith based. Therefore I have come to understand that
1. Christians, why waste your time trying to prove it.
2. Atheists, why waste your time trying to disprove it.

Even the great Sheldon Cooper doesn't claim God doesn't exist, he's one of the few smart enough to know that we can't know, at least not now.

I will however say that organized religion has been the cause of much hatred and senseless death, more so than any other sociological factor combined. But that's a different matter in itself.
#533 to #520 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
so has organized atheism, everyone has their skeletons, whether its the crusades, or the racist works of Darwin, Hitler, or Stalin
#539 to #533 - asgardian
Reply +3
(03/19/2012) [-]
Everyone does have their skeletons. Organized religion just has a lot more than anyone else combined. 2,000 year war anyone?
#559 to #539 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Multi genocide war anyone? What religion had then, atheism has now (or at least in the 20th century)

The only difference is that now there is more people around, but war, murder, and genocide will be around forever because people are people
#581 to #559 - houseofbrick
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Unlike the religious wars, atheism was not the cause of the various dictatorships seen in the early 20th century. Nobody kills people for the reason that there is no God.
#603 to #581 - rottengrits **User deleted account**
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#568 to #559 - asgardian
Reply -2
(03/19/2012) [-]
Like I said, I'm not saying either of them are perfect, it's just one has WAY more deaths than the other.
#580 to #568 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Also if you look at a list of the most horrible atrocities committed by human kind (meaning highest death tolls) the crusades aren't even in the top ten... combined

the highest was caused by MAO ZEDONG, a, atheistic (not an atheist leader) leader

at a whopping 66 million
#1157 to #580 - SunilCCXXXVII **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Why can't you people understand the basics of war; a reason.
MAO ZEDONG's reason wasn't to start a war in the name of atheism, it was to gain power and start a revolution in his country.

If we blame every act on the religion of the person committing it rather than the reason then Christianity would win anyway as it covers about 30% of the globe.
#594 to #580 - asgardian
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Nearly 809 million people have died total in religious wars.
#624 to #594 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Unless you included atheism ,that point is null, and that doesn't refute how the highest amount of murders was caused by an atheist, also I googled your source

It fails to state the differences in a "head start"

number of those killed in RELIGIOUS (not religion specific) wars
809million

Number of those killed in non religious wars, but atheistic leaders
209 million (not counting non religious wars where atheism wasn't a factor)

time since religious wars started 7511 years (hi]ndusim's beginning) '

time since darwinism began 141 years

wow, only 1/4 of the deaths in 1.8% of the time, and that is impressive
#636 to #624 - asgardian
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
You fail to take into account the variables of increasing population and weapons technology. Your math is therefore flawed.
#681 to #636 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
also I'm sorry for your red thumbs, personally I believe it is a bad idea to thumb down arguments

That is unless both sides are ridiculous and the argument is just toxic to the community
#684 to #681 - asgardian
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Don't worry about it, I get way more greens than I do reds. A couple arguments here and there don't really hurt my account.
#674 to #636 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Considering how all humans are valuable, I don't think this makes a point as to how many should be considered valid when thy died

Like I said Atheism does bad to, what religion had then, atheism will have now
#680 to #674 - asgardian
Reply -2
(03/19/2012) [-]
First you reduced it down to a percentage and then when told that you were wrong in calculating it you're saying it's wrong to place a number on human life?

The point is that proportionately (taking into account the greater number of people and the more destructive weapons) religion has MANY more deaths attributed to it than does lack of religion.
#687 to #680 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
actually that number wasn't lack of religion, that number was specifically atheistic, it wasn't wars that didn't have a religious start

proportionately atheism has many more deaths, the time difference is humongous seriously that is 1/4 the deaths in 1.8% of the time!

Proportionately that is MASSIVE in comparison
#705 to #687 - asgardian
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
We now can kill millions with a single bomb. That's my point. You're not taking into account the growth of our destructive capabilities and the greater amount of people that are available to be killed by them.
#817 to #705 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
If you make this point than lets find out the amount of deaths due to religious wars in the past 141 years

the thing about that is, there hasn't been any major religious wars in the past century, and so there is nothing even remotely close to the numbers of Mao Zedong and Stalin

So yes we can kill more people, which there is more of now, but that still doesn't take into account the lack of major religious slaughters (on the same scale for there have been small massacres in 3rd world areas, but these are not in the hundreds much less millions that we see at the hands of atheist leaders as presented in the last century)

btw sorry I was gone i was playing LoL
#822 to #817 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
The War on Terror. Muslim Extremists. I'm going to sleep. I have class early tomorrow.
#947 to #822 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
what are you, retarded? There are no "Muslim Extremeists" they are just crzy people who use religion as a cover story
#837 to #822 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Like I said, these numbers are not even remotely as high, not even breaching the millions

goodnight this debate has been enlightening, I hope there was no animosity for this was for debate between two reasonable people
#1160 to #837 - SunilCCXXXVII **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
I read all that.. it was utter ********, as in everything from both (and a few extra people).

The one thing that plank keeps saying is that just because someone is an atheist, they have killed in the name of their religion.. so far only 1 person has gave an example and that was the red shirts, and it wasn't many deaths at all, I doubt in the 100s.
MAO ZEDONG - he killed for power and to change his country.
Stalin - killed for power

The 30 year war - for Christianity - at the time ~2% of the world population was killed. In todays terms 140million people..
French wars of religion - for Christianity
Sudan civil war - Islam and Christianity
Crusades - Christianity
#1162 to #1160 - asgardian
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Thanks for articulating that.
#829 to #817 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Also I'd give a number on this but the highest anything I could find was Bosnia with a death toll of an estimated 300,000 and this was due to ethnicities (which included religions, but the conflict was not of direct cause of religion) fighting

This number includes both slaughter and military deaths, and though this is a high number, that is less than the 209 million of recent times
#557 to #533 - SunilCCXXXVII **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Well first off, Hitler was a Christian. That doesn't mean he killed in the name of Christianity. Nor does it mean anyone else you mentioned acted in light of their lack of belief.. well Darwin just proved evolution... wtf does that have to do with racism?

Relatively; there have been close to 0 deaths caused by atheism, whilst there have been millions if not billions through direct influence of organised religions.
"Relatively"

#1064 to #557 - eldorito
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
It's debatable whether Hitler was a Christian or not. In some of his works, he berated Christianity. However, if not for Christianity, he probably wouldn't have gotten the support he had gotten.

Charles Darwin was not racist.
#1156 to #1064 - SunilCCXXXVII **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Ok, either way really, it doesn't make a difference as he didn't kill for his belief in or lack of god, he killed for power and dominance, which was my main point.
#583 to #557 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Not true the Red Shirt's in mexico killed for Atheism.
#618 to #583 - SunilCCXXXVII **User deleted account**
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
True, but that's why I said "relatively", it's an insignificant amount compared to those killed in the name of other religions. I will say that had to do with politics too, but you're right as it was for atheism.
#630 to #618 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Yeah i know, I just get tired of hearing that Atheism has never killed before every Religion and lack-thereof has blood on it's hand's. Some more than other's but all do none the less.
#572 to #557 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Hitler wasn't a christian, and if he "was" it was only by name not by action. God has a tendency to dislike raising one's self up as a god, and claiming you have divine right.

For instance would you call me an atheist if I stated I still believed there was a God, and that he was a great noodle being?

Darwin was racist in a similar fashion that Hitler was, claiming that the Aryan race was superior and that Black people were inferior

This does indeed follow survival of the fittest

Also those numbers aren't accurate, unless you consider ALL religions, in which case you would have to take into account atheism, making the point null

You also failed to mention Stalin, who killed more people, but didn't get as much hatred because he wasn't defeated in a war and didn't target a specific group
#579 to #572 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
I won't get into details but the fact that he was a Christian by name and not action is a perfect example of organized religion. Which is what we are criticizing.
#659 to #579 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
you do have a point, but all major ideas are guilty, atheism to
#665 to #659 - asgardian
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
I never said any idea was innocent. I just gave out a numerical fact. More deaths in war are attributed to religious differences than any other sociological factor combined.
#691 to #572 - rushnroulette **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#600 to #572 - SunilCCXXXVII **User deleted account**
Reply -2
(03/19/2012) [-]
He believed in Christianity, that was his faith, it's your gods choice to judge him not yours.
No I'd say you believed in a noodle god, because that's the faith you chose, like Hitler chose to be a Christian.
.... I don't get your comments on Darwin.. what does that matter? You Christians had slaves, the only reason people had slaves is because white people thought they were better than blacks.. racism.

-.- Almost nobody has killed in the name of atheism. Stalin killed for power, not atheism.

**** it, your god killed everything except 2 of every animal.
#571 to #557 - lazengahn
Reply -7
(03/19/2012) [-]
Darwin did not "prove" evolution.
Atheist kill millions everyday -.-

#608 to #571 - rottengrits **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#589 to #571 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Atheists kill millions everyday? lol no
#602 to #589 - lazengahn
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Look up how many people are killed everyday and tell me NONE of them are atheist.
#612 to #602 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
You're the one making the claim. Show me where millions die daily because of atheism.
#628 to #612 - lazengahn
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Says the guy whose made 10 claims to my one without proof lol
#631 to #628 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
>Name my 10 claims that have no evidence behind them.
>Why dodge the question? Where is your evidence?
#639 to #631 - lazengahn
Reply -3
(03/19/2012) [-]
"I won't get into details but the fact that he was a Christian by name and not action is a perfect example of organized religion. Which is what we are criticizing. "


I won't get into details either ;)
#643 to #639 - asgardian
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
1. I was saying that I wasn't going to address all his points, just the first one.

2. It's not even a claim, it's a concept.

3. Even if it were a claim you have 9 more to go.

"Atheist kill millions everyday -.- " or "Look up how many people are killed everyday and tell me NONE of them are atheist. "

Which is it? Millions die every single day because of atheism or at least one person dies every single day because of atheism. Make up your mind.



#651 to #643 - lazengahn
Reply -2
(03/19/2012) [-]
I won't get into details, but you still doged the question.
#654 to #651 - asgardian
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
I can't tell if you're actually retarded.
#660 to #654 - lazengahn
Reply -2
(03/19/2012) [-]
The feeling is mutual.
#673 to #660 - asgardian
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
If you ever feel like providing any semblance of support whatsoever to your claim that millions die every single day because of atheism then feel free to do so. Otherwise nothing you have said has any validity whatsoever.
#704 to #673 - lazengahn
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Darwin still didn't prove evolution.
#724 to #704 - marinepenguin
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Evolution has been proven, although the evolutionary lineages of descent have not. Basically what I'm saying is that we know it occurs, but we don't know where everything orginated from.
#736 to #724 - lazengahn
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
But DARWIN didn't do it, that was one of the things I originally addressed.
#738 to #736 - marinepenguin
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Didn't say he did, he introduced it as his way of explaining how all animals originated. He did not prove it.
#741 to #738 - lazengahn
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
I know, that's what i'm saying. -.-

#748 to #741 - marinepenguin
+2
(03/19/2012) [-]
Good, we have come to an agreement.
#711 to #704 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
I never said he did. We will never "prove" evolution because we can never know if we've discovered all species on earth. It is conclusively observable 3.3 million years back in humans though. Unless you want to disregard radiometric dating.
#731 to #711 - marinepenguin
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Evolution is considered to be factual now, since it is observable and can be set up. Although we may never prove where everything originated from.
#740 to #731 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
It's still considered a theory in the scientific community. My point was that even though it has been "proven" in many specific cases, the theory as a whole will never be proven.
#745 to #740 - marinepenguin
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
It is still considered as a theory because of the fact that we cannot fully prove the lineages of different species. Although the act of Evolution itself is proven.
#783 to #745 - asgardian
+1
(03/19/2012) [-]
that's what i was trying to say, i'm not good at articulating ideas.
#721 to #711 - lazengahn
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]


No, you didn't say that, but it was... that person buried in a million replies now... can you search text without ctrl + F?
too lazy to actually look.
#723 to #721 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
I know someone else said that. Why are you bringing it up *******? It's totally irrelevant to our argument.

I can now tell that you are actually retarded.
#728 to #723 - lazengahn
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
awwww **** we're swearing now, **** just lost it's civility.
Otherwise nothing you have said has any validity whatsoever.
Who said this? I forgot...
oh, it was you.
awkward...
#735 to #728 - marinepenguin
+1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Both of you have begun to get illogical. Although lazengahn, you have never been very logical.
#536 to #520 - hydromatic
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

#708 to #520 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
I agree with all that you said, and I'm glad that I'm not the only one to realize this.
#550 to #520 - BlottedScience
Reply +7
(03/19/2012) [-]
Im fine with other people believing in a god. What i am not okay with is people trying to teach it in schools or people like Newt Gingrich saying that he would not trust an atheist president because people cant make good choices without god.

Religion isn't the problem. Just as you said, organized religion is. The only downfall is that organized religion actually has a foothold in government, and that is why we argue.
#576 to #550 - asgardian
Reply +5
(03/19/2012) [-]
1. People should be able to teach it in schools. Coming from an atheist. If they can't it defeats the "freedom of religion" concept. You should be taught all possibilities with demonstrable evidence. Christopher Hitchens sent his children to Catholic schools when they were young so they'd be exposed to it and he let them decide. He's one of the most famous atheists (and intelligent) we've known.

2. I agree, God does not equal morals. Humans have a much higher cognitive ability to reflect on our actions than do animals, thus allowing morals. With or without God.

3. Yep lol
#1188 to #576 - rickmac
Reply 0
(03/20/2012) [-]
but the question remains, WHERE DID THIS MORAL CODE COME FROM?


lol how did i get here
#1189 to #1188 - asgardian
Reply 0
(03/20/2012) [-]
Observational learning. It's studied in psychology. It's basically like "would I like it if someone did that to me?". It's obviously not perfect because crime still exists and all that but it does pretty well.
#605 to #576 - BlottedScience
Reply -8
(03/19/2012) [-]
Religion should not be taught in schools because schools teach use of reason and logic and scientific fact, and religion denies all of these. I don't care what Christopher Hitchens did. That is an argument from authority, which is a flawed argument.

Atheism is not a religion. It is the act of not having a religion. What you are saying is that not collecting postcards can be considered a hobby.
#609 to #605 - asgardian
Reply +2
(03/19/2012) [-]
1. Never said atheism was a religion.
2. There is some scientific evidence that supports intelligent design, however scarce. It's true that there is MUCH MORE evidence in the support of the origin of life without God. Nonetheless schools teach much more than just reason, logic, and science. They teach critical thinking, creativity, and tolerance. (or they should)
#621 to #609 - BlottedScience
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
What scientific proof is there? Im genuinely intrigued. And i know you didn't say that atheism is a religion, i just wanted to put that out there before some nutjob burst in claiming that it is.
#629 to #621 - asgardian
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
No proof, just scarce evidence, mainly in support of the accuracy of biblical scripture and the lack of disproof. I guess I shouldn't call it scientific because it's not testable. It's more of a philosophical, sociological, and cultural subject that should be learned about.
#653 to #629 - BlottedScience
Reply -3
(03/19/2012) [-]
But thats exactly my point. Disproving opposing proof does not constitute proof. Religion should not be taught in schools because we live in a world of scientific evidence, and there is none for religion.
#657 to #653 - asgardian
Reply +2
(03/19/2012) [-]
That's just naive. Again, who said anything about proof. My point is that you cannot prove or disprove either view. There is room for religion whether we like it or not. To ignore religion is to ignore a huge part of global culture. How can we persuade and help the masses when we don't understand our audience. Not every career is based in scientific fact alone.
#709 to #657 - BlottedScience
Reply -2
(03/19/2012) [-]
There is scientific proof for the theory of the big bang. There is no scientific proof for any religion to date. In fact, there has been a million dollar prize for anyone who is able to scientifically prove gods existence. It has sat there for years.

School is not about learning about global cultures' religions. School is about being able to address the world in a scientific fashion. Everything besides faith has its roots in scientific theory. Saying that a large part of the world believes in religion is an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. Just because many people believe it doesn't mean that it is right.

You address the world with scientific reasoning. You look up at the sky and know that because the clouds are dark, that based on past events it will most likely rain today. Science is what allows us to grow crops, shelter ourselves from the elements, and create governments based on moral and ethical standpoints. Religion does none of this, and it actually contradicts much of the fundamental ideals of science, and yet you think that it should be taught in schools, which are here to educate people about the natural world. Come on.
#716 to #709 - asgardian
Reply +2
(03/19/2012) [-]
There is scientific evidence for the theory of the big bang, not proof.

School is not about being able to address the world in a scientific fashion. Science classes are about that. You're very narrow-minded.

PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY: I'm not saying religion is right. I'm saying it's impossible to ignore on a global cultural scale and to ignore that big of a demographic would result in much less effective human beings in ALL fields. It's something that must be taken into account regardless of it's validity. In marketing, psychology, etc.

Again, stop simplifying the purpose of schooling. It's much broader than you continue to claim.
#750 to #716 - BlottedScience
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Fair enough, i misspoke on the evidence/proof thing.

Im narrow minded? Science is everything. Science is not just chemistry and biology. Science is the ability to gain knowledge of the world around us. You emotions? Chemistry. Art? Visual or auditory stimulus and emotion. Our understanding of everything in this world comes from the ability to repeat scenarios and learn from experimentation, which is exactly what science is.

You are portraying science in way that shows ignorance of the subject, which is very ironic. But besides that, you are claiming that some things in the world happen that are not scientifically supported and explainable, which is complete ********. Which is exactly why i don not accept religion. We live in a physical world. Science is what got us to the moon. Do you know how that happened? Schooling in the realm of science, ie the physical world. This is why religion should not be taught. It does nothing for the advancement of the human race except for hold us back with misinterpreted stone age morals. Religion has no place in a schooling system. You can pray all you want at home, but there is a reason for the separation of church and state.
#823 to #750 - asgardian
Reply +2
(03/19/2012) [-]
I think you misunderstand educating people about world religions with converting them to these religions. My point is that you would be ignorant to ignore such a huge demographic simply because you disagree with it. You can use knowledge of others beliefs for yours and their benefit. You can use it to advance.

You only pay attention to one realm of understanding and utility. Yes we research, discover, and understand with science, but many things in life can not be simplified so easily.
#1033 to #823 - BlottedScience
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
I am not ignoring a demographic. I am giving my opinion on a subject. I could care less if a large percentage of the people are religious. I am saying that religion has no place in any institutionalized setting, which is one of the main reasons this country was founded. Again, just because there is a large percentage of the populace with religious beliefs does not make my opinion or point any less valid. It is an opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own, though that does not mean that some are not better than others. Please stop justifying your point using majority reasoning.

And what do you mean about using knowledge of beliefs for your benefit? Please clarify.

And no, all things in life can be explained by science. Sadly we do not at the present know the exact chemical requirements for a feeling of love ore compassion, but such things do have an answer without the need for some form of almighty being. And just because we cannot presently explain them does not mean that religion or belief in a soul suddenly has the right answer.
#1163 to #1033 - asgardian
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but all opinions are not of equal worth. You can say a Ford F-150 looks cooler than a Chevy Silverado and no one can argue with you but as soon as you say the Ford is a better truck you need a solid argument. You've yet to address the point that ignoring religion in school would be ignorant (by it's actual definition).

By using the knowledge of others beliefs you can begin to approach explaining to them why they may or may not be true and forging alliances rather than war. My point is that you are fully grounded in science, many fanatical religious groups/leaders are not. In order to understand them you must understand their beliefs. It's not a matter of following the religion. It's a matter of learning about it. A social study.

In Psychology (the scientific study of human behavior) one of the fundamental research methods is observation. Observation among a large group of diverse people with diverse beliefs.

I didn't say that things couldn't be explained by science, I said they couldn't all be simplified by it.
#843 to #750 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Actually religion is what saved what we have of the ancient world

When the Romans fell due to the barbarian hoards, and Rome's own faults, the dark age began.

The only places that kept and maintained the knowledge of the ancient western world was the Ottoman's and Christian monasteries

So yes religion has had many positive impacts on the world, including bringing it into the renessaince

Just as science has brought us penicillin and the atomic bomb
#1018 to #843 - BlottedScience
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
I am not doubting that religion has ever had any positive influence. I am saying that in the present, there is no reason for there to be as much organized religion as there exists. Sure, back in the day i'm sure that religion was the only thing keeping many people going, but that was during the dark ages, as you said. Today we have no need for it. It is a relic of a time when such fantasies were needed.
#652 to #621 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
proof is mostly found in lack of proof, this may sound vague so let me elaborate

Have you heard of the multiverse theory? This theory states that there is an infinite amount of universes, because of this there is every possible possibility in existence

Want to know the proof of the multiverse theory?

There isn't any, this is only around to explain the existence of everything.

For you see the chances of the big bang happening is literally impossible, it is somewhat beyond twice what is mathematically considered impossible, so the multiverse theory is a way of explaining that it was bound to happen in an infinite chance spectrum

One could argue that existence was bound to happen because time is infinite, and that regardless of chance, if given an infinite spectrum chance it would infact happen

These people fail to realize that time is relative to gravity/matter so if there is no existence than there is no time

Also mutations are almost always negative, and the chances of an organism getting all of its vital components out of a, or set of, mutations is somewhat impossible (such as the giraffe theory where as they would have all died out before the next numerous mutations occurred to save them from simply killing themselves due to faulty biological engineering)

This is the same with all animals, in which case the earth isn't even old enough (old or young earth theories) for all these animals to evolved the way they did

Most theories explaining God's (christian) existence are morally based
#676 to #652 - BlottedScience
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
But thats a logical fallacy. You cannot prove something by disproving something.

And where is this theorem on the probability of the universe starting by the big bang? You cannot find the probability of reality. That makes no sense.

Time is also not infinite. According to the theory of the big bang the matter and antimatter comprising the universe existed before the big bang. This ball of matter and antimatter was so incredibly dense that time literally did not exist. It has been proven that gravity can bend light and time. This would mean that the big bang did not need a cause for the effect to happen, because the idea of cause and effect only exist in a liner timeline.

And what is all that about mutation? Do you understand evolution?
#248 - forevertrombone
Reply +34
(03/19/2012) [-]
#306 to #248 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
It can go both ways bro admit it.

"You're Christian?

It must be your job to tell Atheists every other faith why they are wrong and the scourge of the human race."
#319 to #306 - SunilCCXXXVII **User deleted account**
Reply +7
(03/19/2012) [-]
Also gay people, it's their job to tell gay people they are going to hell.
#610 to #306 - whiteyswag
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
not all Christians are condemning assholes like you see on the street corners in cities, most would be willing to help you understand their religion instead of shoving it down your throat like some ignorant asshole.
#570 to #306 - kylejp
Reply -3
(03/19/2012) [-]
It is our job to spread the Gospel, with love and compassion.
#593 to #570 - rottengrits **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#619 to #593 - kylejp
Reply -1
(03/19/2012) [-]
are you atheist?
#1165 to #619 - rottengrits **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#1190 to #1165 - kylejp
Reply 0
(03/20/2012) [-]
how can you know for sure there is no God?
#323 - oblesidonika
Reply +32
(03/19/2012) [-]
#11 - soulkiller
Reply +30
(03/18/2012) [-]
mfw I saw rape
#41 to #11 - altma **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#861 - markthewhark
Reply +29
(03/19/2012) [-]
God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs, God creates man, man destroys God...


Man creates dinosaurs.
#896 to #861 - tuborial
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
i just watched this movie, there was once scene where jeff goldblum is lying hurt with his shirt half off (like right before they restart everything) and i was captioned it in my head with "my body is ready" and "paint me like one of your french girls" i need a break from fj
i just watched this movie, there was once scene where jeff goldblum is lying hurt with his shirt half off (like right before they restart everything) and i was captioned it in my head with "my body is ready" and "paint me like one of your french girls" i need a break from fj
#990 to #896 - tuborial
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
found it, could someone caption it for me as i am not good at that
#902 to #861 - klondikemonster
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
Dinosaurs eat man... women inherits the Earth.
#917 to #902 - anon
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
Cars kill Women
#924 to #861 - Bronboa
Reply +1
(03/19/2012) [-]
#191 - goml
Reply +26
(03/19/2012) [-]
1. Person says a defining fact of their belief
2.OP spills a huge load of scientific babble (never actually happened, probably something more like "BUT DURR IS NO GOD I'M SO EDGY LOLXD")
3.Person gets angry, begins to rage and say ridiculous stereotype of their religion/belief
4.OP says something witty (never happened, probably something more like "LOL U MAD CHRISTIAN?"

Come on, we all know the story, it's been told a million times. I am a devout atheist, but stop making all religious people out to be insane, or you'll be no better then the corrupt leaders you love to rebel against. I hate asshole atheists, they make all atheist seem like douchebags...

Go on with the red thumbs.
#1078 to #191 - finni
Reply 0
(03/19/2012) [-]
I like atheists like you.

I understand that atheists might get angry at Christians in their daily life, but going on the internet and troll about it is not helping your cause.
#241 to #191 - suizidalerkaese **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#268 - kellbells
Reply +25
(03/19/2012) [-]
#236 - CleverNameHere
Reply +24
(03/19/2012) [-]
**CleverNameHere rolled a random image posted in comment #166 at DO IT **