The Long War on Christianity. The tags are a lie. Wray. t! atic, ? dayle my/, live In_ an America where Christians iggy, ulsters} freal [, -. Christianity. derh the description is Truth
x
Click to expand

The Long War on Christianity

The Long War on Christianity. The tags are a lie. Wray. t! atic, ? dayle my/, live In_ an America where Christians iggy, ulsters} freal [, -. Christianity. derh

The tags are a lie

Wray. t! atic, ? dayle my/, live
In_ an America where Christians
iggy, ulsters} freal [, -.
Christianity.
derh aha , tii' r netsky
spread/ {gar
iall
Al rm
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+2254
Views: 50322
Favorited: 116
Submitted: 08/20/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to llortemageht submit to reddit

Comments(332):

[ 332 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
+35
#142 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#215 to #142 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #253 to #142 - sterlingarcher (08/21/2012) [-]
Completely agree. Someone that doesnt care about abortions and all that jizz. Perhaps and economic guy that can fix the economy (that's most important right now)
#145 to #142 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
What if it's an atheist who is a complete prick who just ***** on people with religious beliefs? That would be a ****** president. I'd rather have an agnostic first, then go into an atheist. You have to have a transitional president.
+6
#146 to #145 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#148 to #145 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
perhaps you should read the third sentence of his post, which makes your reply completely pointless.
User avatar #155 to #142 - avengingthefallen (08/21/2012) [-]
honestly in my mind, any athiest who's not really a dick about it, one who looks at religions and spiritual beliefs on a level headed and equal plane is more agnostic than anything. Obviously one can still favor the idea that god doesn't exist, i'm consider myself agnostic and i believe that way, but if you're going to be completely reasonable about it, that same person would also be willing to admit that he can't make such a definitive statement about such an uncertain subject. I do agree with what you said though.
+2
#161 to #155 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #241 to #161 - dbanks (08/21/2012) [-]
Agnostic, in its definition, just means "without knowledge". It's possible to be an Agnostic Atheist, to profess non-belief, but not claim to have absolute knowledge if it's true. It's also possible to be an Agnostic Christian, to profess belief, but without absolute knowledge. It doesn't mean unsure, it just means professing a lack of absolute knowledge.
User avatar #194 to #161 - avengingthefallen (08/21/2012) [-]
ag·nos·tic n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I just don't think it's our place to say. Me being more scientifically minded, regardless of what side I take as far as faith is concerned, at the end of the day there is just no definitive proof that any form of god or a deity, without a doubt, does not exist. Don't get me wrong, I hate religion by all means. but in the broadest senses, i can be anywhere from near athiest, to provisional deist depending on the argument. The only thing that I believe most strongly against is the idea of ANY kind of interventionist god or pre-determined destiny.
+1
#198 to #194 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#240 to #198 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
Agnostic has many definitions my personal definition is someone who does believe in a higher power but the probability of it being guessed or interpreted with accuracy is low as hell. But this is just my input.
User avatar #178 to #142 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
I dont think their beliefs should matter :P Anyone thats not an extriemist is fine.
0
#183 to #178 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #189 to #183 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
Ok no offence but what you said their wasent very..thought out. Because first off, thats not true. We have had FANTASTIC presidents who were religious. what you just said is When a religious person gets into office they are biased (which is true in a sence but not with religion) thats not always true. and if the statement you made is true, than an Atheist president would be the same way. he would be biased to those who share his or her lack of belief. Know what im sayin?
+2
#196 to #189 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #201 to #196 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
There are atheists who want more gun laws, and dont like homosexuals and believe homosexuals shouldnt be married. Im not completley disagreeing with you. A non-biased president would be nice but their religion/or lack of should not be an issue
+1
#208 to #201 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #211 to #208 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
Thats impossible. It just is, weather their religious or non religious its impossible.
+2
#214 to #211 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #219 to #214 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
Whats funny is most of the laws we have are from that "text book" be careful what you say my friend. and Non religious can still bring their own beliefs. a Non-Religious person dosent make them completley unbiased and totally fair. for some reason you have that mind set.
#237 to #219 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
Sorry I'm an anon but I'm too lazy to sign in. Whats wrong with what you just said is: religion doesn't birth laws basic human morality does, meaning a specific religion doesn't create laws we as human's know and even feel we are inflicting pain upon another creature be it human or animal and alot of people would argue that we hurt animals in daily basis by eating and consuming animal parts ALTHOUGH that is not true; just vegetables can't support a human nutritionally we require meat for iron and protein and many other nutrients.
0
#223 to #219 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #227 to #223 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
No im understanding the non biased part I made that clear -_- what your not understanding is state of belief has nothing to do with being biased. I can be religious and not biased. or atheist and not biased. both parties can be non biased so the you dont have to say an atheist. you can just say a non biased person.
0
#231 to #227 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #175 to #142 - samanthasfriend (08/21/2012) [-]
if god doesn't exist then why can we fit perfectly on horses?
+4
#182 to #175 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#192 to #182 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
If god doesn't exist why does my chair fit my ass perfectly?
+4
#200 to #192 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #191 to #142 - akkere (08/21/2012) [-]
I think we just need someone who doesn't mix religion into politics. That simple.

No religious bias, but able to retain whatever belief they want.
+3
#203 to #191 - thekracken **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#141 - LowerThanDirtt (08/21/2012) [-]
I can't wait for an openly Muslim presidential candidate. America will **** it's pants
#238 to #141 - zigzagderpaderp (08/21/2012) [-]
Don't we already?
#107 - I Am Monkey (08/21/2012) [-]
>See post
>"Ok lets see the ********* "
>Scroll down to the comments
>All of them are about boiled chicken
>Get to the bottom of the page before realizing I accidentally hit next
>MFW
#239 - jjristine (08/21/2012) [-]
Oh 			****		.Religion and politics in the same thread
Oh **** .Religion and politics in the same thread
User avatar #48 - leightonsolomon (08/21/2012) [-]
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure several of the earlier presidents were Deists.
#119 to #48 - Haane (08/21/2012) [-]
"'Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure several of the earlier presidents were Deists.'

- leightonsolomon "

-chrasmaticjdub

-anonymous
User avatar #94 to #48 - AngryPlatypus (08/21/2012) [-]
I believe you are correct sir. If my memory serves me right Thomas Jefferson was a deist.
User avatar #81 to #48 - charasmaticjdub (08/21/2012) [-]
"Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure several of the earlier presidents were Deists."

- leightonsolomon
#114 to #81 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
"'Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure several of the earlier presidents were Deists.'

- leightonsolomon "

-chrasmaticjdub
0
#233 to #114 - bemysenorita **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #93 to #81 - tepeniam (08/21/2012) [-]
"I'm pretty sure several of the...presidents were deists." -leightonsolomon
#31 - thechosentroll (08/21/2012) [-]
This image has expired
I love my religion. It's called *************** . Basically, it lets me do what I want, doesn't change my lifestyle in any way and requires no effort whatsoever. The main dogma consists of the three "Don't"s - "Don't know.", "Don't care.", "Don't bother me.". There are no sins other than giving a **** . We also don't have a heaven or hell. Once you bite the dust you get to spend all eternity taking the worlds' longest nap.

Have fun with your little religious argumens while I sit here, laughing at your stupidity.
User avatar #118 to #31 - theholum (08/21/2012) [-]
Does such a lifestyle even need an '-ism'?
User avatar #38 to #31 - Plaugue (08/21/2012) [-]
I believe in Video Game God. There's no way another man can take 20 bullets and walk it off in a video game without videogame god
#232 to #31 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
Good for you man, I myself am a Atheist but I find these religion fights about as retarded as two toddlers taking each others toys and blaming each other. I don't give a **** about your religion, it's cool you can believe in something, but when you argue about it, that just proves you're a idiot.
#265 to #31 - ericbeagles (08/21/2012) [-]
I'm gonna go ahead and join your religion. Also the picture is how I imagine you. Don't question it.
I'm gonna go ahead and join your religion. Also the picture is how I imagine you. Don't question it.
#49 to #31 - Khasim (08/21/2012) [-]
This is officially called agnosticism. "Gnosis" means "to think" in Latin, "agnosis" - not thinking - basically it's saying "I will never know whether God exists or not, so I will live my life completely ignoring the matter"

And I am jealous of you laughing at people who have religious fights, I'm sad for them because they get mad over meaningless ******** that they can't do anything about. If everyone just stopped fighting over ******** (like faith - MY FAITH IS BETTER THAN YOURS BELIEVE IN WHAT I BELIEVE IN OR YOU ARE A RETARD) the world would be a much better place.

Picture unrelated.
#70 to #49 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
Do not spread ******** . It comes from Gnonis, knowledge and A-, without/not. So it basically means we cannot know. Agnostic is used wrongly too. You can be;
Agnostic atheist, Gnostic atheist
Agnostic theist, Gnostic theist

What you are looking for is nihilism.
User avatar #51 to #49 - thechosentroll (08/21/2012) [-]
Yeah, but I preffer calling it *************** .
User avatar #84 to #49 - msvegeta (08/21/2012) [-]
Sounds more like nihilism to me.

He is rejecting the existence of Heaven and Hell, and he clearly defines what he thinks will happen when he dies. Doesn't sound that agnostic to me
0
#349 to #84 - candidvres **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#143 to #84 - bobsagetissocool (08/21/2012) [-]
It's more apathy than nihlism.
#72 to #49 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
From the greek gnósis (γνῶσις), «knowledge» --> Agnosticism = impossibility to know (certain "truths")
User avatar #34 - JediismUser (08/21/2012) [-]
I've always wondered if there could be a non-Christian president, they don't have to be Athiest, but maybe Buddhist or something, I'd like to see how that'd play out in America.
User avatar #35 to #34 - fuzzyballs (08/21/2012) [-]
a christian country won't vote for a bhuddist president, unless they have no choice
#37 to #35 - Sammael (08/21/2012) [-]
I don't know. What if in the middle of campaign it comes out that other guy is closet gay with communist leanings?
User avatar #41 to #37 - fuzzyballs (08/21/2012) [-]
aren't americans good at digging up "dirt"? those guys wouldn't make it far enough
#36 to #35 - warningomg (08/21/2012) [-]
I would
User avatar #40 to #36 - fuzzyballs (08/21/2012) [-]
you're not a christian country, you're one person
#42 to #40 - warningomg (08/21/2012) [-]
true, but I am a part of a christian country
User avatar #44 to #42 - fuzzyballs (08/21/2012) [-]
again, that's not what I said
don't reply if you have nothing decent to say
User avatar #52 to #35 - SniperKitty (08/21/2012) [-]
We aren't a Christian country though, we are just filled with Christians who like to think we are.
User avatar #66 to #52 - fuzzyballs (08/21/2012) [-]
isn't that the definition of a christian country?
User avatar #75 to #66 - SniperKitty (08/21/2012) [-]
No a Christian country would mean Christianity governed our laws which it does not, they even make churches tax exempt in the US making it illegal for churches to be part of the political process (wish someone would tell the Christians and Catholics that).

We really need to go in and tell the churches that they can either start paying taxes, or start punishments for churches who involve themselves in politics.
#87 to #66 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
It is illegal for a President/ the government to endorse a religion, which is where President Ford got into a whole ******** of trouble. So to say we are a Christian country is pretty much going against what American's stand for in the religious sense.
User avatar #69 to #66 - zraxx (08/21/2012) [-]
No the definition of a christian country is a country who's laws and regulations are based off of the only religion allowed to hold office, which would be christian.
User avatar #47 to #34 - rotosushi (08/21/2012) [-]
John F. Kennedy was a catholic
#62 to #47 - Sammael (08/21/2012) [-]

Catholic church: Christians and churches, western and eastern, in full communion with the Holy See.

Catholics are christian. Except for fringe nutcases everyone knows that.
User avatar #68 to #34 - zraxx (08/21/2012) [-]
Well you have to be a monotheist to hold office in several states. One being Texas
#90 to #68 - thebilliam (08/21/2012) [-]
That is according to a state constitution, the federal constitution overrides anything that impedes it.  So for example if a state constitution were to say that in order to hold an office they need to believe in a god then the federal constitution would override that since it holds that no religious test can be used when it comes to governmental jobs
That is according to a state constitution, the federal constitution overrides anything that impedes it. So for example if a state constitution were to say that in order to hold an office they need to believe in a god then the federal constitution would override that since it holds that no religious test can be used when it comes to governmental jobs
User avatar #242 to #90 - zraxx (08/21/2012) [-]
I'm just saying what Texas state law says.
#120 to #90 - Haane (08/21/2012) [-]
Ha....I'm watching Doctor Who Series 5 right now. :)
#129 to #34 - slumberdonkey (08/21/2012) [-]
How bout morman? Mitt Romney is a morman. I bet he'd make a great president... mfw
+1
#135 to #129 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #136 to #135 - slumberdonkey (08/21/2012) [-]
Is a christian really anyone that believes that christ was the son of god?
+2
#138 to #136 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#197 to #34 - clonicity (08/21/2012) [-]
Isn't Obama a Jew?
I heard it somewhere, don't kill me if I'm wrong :(
#193 to #34 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
>Be Buddhist
>Want to be President

Do you really mean it?
User avatar #50 to #34 - SniperKitty (08/21/2012) [-]
Haven't you seen the uproar over Obama allegedly being a "Muslim"

Who the **** cares what religion a president is as long as he doesn't govern by it, that's all that should matter.

But in some states you MUST have a belief in a "higher power" in order to hold any government office. It's a law in only a few states, but I can name Texas as one of them off the top of my head because I used to live there. It's in the Texas constitution that someone can't be discriminated against a government office as long as that person has a "belief in a higher power".... aka no Atheists allowed.
User avatar #132 to #50 - slumberdonkey (08/21/2012) [-]
Exactly, who the **** cares? So why is it that if an atheist ran for president he would be ******* crucified?
User avatar #218 to #132 - SniperKitty (08/21/2012) [-]
Because America is home to fundamental Christians. While the rest of the world experiences loving and accepting Christians, we are over run with the extremists. Ironic that we hate Muslims because they are terrorists, but don't blink an eye when someone burns down a church that accepts homosexuality, we don't make a big deal when abortion clinics are bombed and doctors are shot in cold blood by Christian extremists. We have Christian terrorists here, and nobody wants to see it.
User avatar #74 to #50 - JediismUser (08/21/2012) [-]
Yeah I actually just heard about this uproar, I swear the media will take anything and contort it all to hell. Oh **** guys, I have German blood in me, I must HEIL HITLER, clearly. I am not much of a fan on how Obama does things in office, but he needs a ******* break with how the media treats him like a terrorist.
User avatar #225 to #74 - SniperKitty (08/21/2012) [-]
Fox News kind of went on a crazy lie spree with Obama, they found anything they could and made it bad. Have you heard them mention the fact that he killed Osama? No, but if it was a GOP president, that **** would be EVERYWHERE right now in the campaign. This is all if you believe that he killed him, I'm skeptical but that's beside the point.

It seems there is a bad air about him that has been spread by the media. Yet you have Romney whining that people are attacking him on his tax returns. Seriously? Look at Obama and the **** he's gone through with the media, he needs to stop his bitching and take it like a man or put his tax returns out.
+9
#171 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#111 - pineappletime (08/21/2012) [-]
rev up those paragraph long comments!
rev up those paragraph long comments!
#235 - butsecks **User deleted account** (08/21/2012) [-]
scrollin' past that comments section to find something actually funny.
scrollin' past that comments section to find something actually funny.
User avatar #185 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
What ever happened to seperation of church and state. Why does religion have to be such a factor and why does FJ have to slap it on everything -_-
User avatar #188 to #185 - alikcat (08/21/2012) [-]
why do you have to be such a a new fag, just accept it
User avatar #190 to #185 - alikcat (08/21/2012) [-]
I actually think politics and religion is ******* retarded
#234 to #190 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
>politics and religion is ******* retarded
>and religion is
>is
User avatar #195 to #190 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
Nice to know your opinion bro
#209 to #190 - alikcat (08/21/2012) [-]
Yes shower me in red thumbs
User avatar #228 to #209 - trollinginthedeepp (08/21/2012) [-]
Don't mind if I do.
#246 to #185 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
Nothing. they didn't follow that law when it was made and they don't follow it now.

because we are a group of cock loving faggots that can't shut the **** up about our opinions, hence why i responded to this comment
User avatar #212 to #185 - eonsmashface (08/21/2012) [-]
it's what happens when we give jobs to people who don't read the constitution.
or any other important document made.
#163 - fourtardsunited ONLINE (08/21/2012) [-]
good
User avatar #174 to #163 - latinotornado (08/21/2012) [-]
Its funny because John Stewert is a ******* Jew :D
#168 to #163 - iamphoenix (08/21/2012) [-]
*by war, greed and disease

Fixed.
User avatar #199 to #168 - cullenatorguy (08/21/2012) [-]
and what causes or justifies this? Religion. Look at the middle east, you think that's only a territory dispute? It's based off of contradicting verses in the Bible and Koran. The Inquisition, the Dark Ages, the Crusades. Look at fundamentalist churches, which aren't some small minority, taking the money out of people, who can't really afford to give any money, and then putting into a gym for their church and other useless **** . When most churches of any denomination send money to foreign countries, it goes into purchasing Bibles to give to the needy, and not much care is really given. The catholic church sends missionaries to Africa to help those with AIDS, yet tells them not to wear condoms because it's a sin, and you know what? All the people I've mentioned believe it because they have run out of options and want divine help. Not to mention how it causes hate towards groups of people that don't deserve it. Just look at the feeling towards gays. Not the best. No one opposes gays or gay marriage because they think it's just icky, they do it because their holy book says too.

TL;DR
Read the god damn comment and quit being a lazy **** .
#202 to #199 - iamphoenix (08/21/2012) [-]
Believing in God doesn't guarantee any of that, though. It isn't simply because they believe in God/god/gods, it's because they're not good people. People will do anything they can to justify their actions, whether it's reasonable or not. If I killed someone and said 'god told me to' would you blame God or the psychopath?
#206 to #199 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
Religion doesn't cause it, Human Atrocity causes it.

Religion is just their excuse to justify it.
Had it not existed, it would've found another thing to point an excuse to.
User avatar #216 to #206 - cullenatorguy (08/21/2012) [-]
So honor killings, religious wars (like the middle east), hating of gays, hating of people who are different, etc. would still exist? Let me clarify on the middle east, it is caused by religion. Had those verses not been written, had that religion never existed, the jews would be in Europe and have no reason to return. Had the holocaust not occurred (and yes, it was a religious action) they'd have no reason to move away from Europe at all, much less go back to the middle east. It'd be like the U.S. going to war with England because that's where our roots came from. Religion not only justifies atrocities, it inspires them.
#252 to #216 - iamphoenix (08/21/2012) [-]
If it's because of religion, and only religion, then every religious person would display these traits. But they don't. Because of this fact, it can't just be religion. Those wars aren't about God, they're about greed and lust for power. Just because people use it as an excuse doesn't mean that it's the root cause for it. A man kills another man because he has no regard for life, not because he believes in a merciful God who forbids killing. Josef Stalin was an atheist and responsible for millions of deaths. It wasn't because he was an atheist, it was because he was a monster. The perversion of morality is what inspires and justifies atrocities, not religion.
User avatar #261 to #252 - cullenatorguy (08/21/2012) [-]
Do you know why not all religious people show these traits? Because their morals over power their books. If you were a good christian, or jew, or muslim, you'd have killed too many people to count. There may still be wars and murder in an atheist world, but far less than there are in this one. Atheists tend to value life more, and therefore the life of others.
#282 to #261 - iamphoenix (08/21/2012) [-]
What makes you think that atheists value life more? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". You're making assumptions that you can't possibly justify. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're any less of an asshole. My faith tells me that I am treat others with compassion and respect.
#284 to #282 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
No, it tells you to kill anyone of different beliefs.
Matthew 5:17
Everything in the Old Testament is still valid.
<read this for the value of life.
I'm an asshole towards most religious, yes, but that doesn't mean I'm a bad person. I try to help others, be a good person, and donate to charities. I do my best to live a good life.
#293 to #284 - iamphoenix (08/22/2012) [-]
The Old Testament has been fulfilled by the New Covenant. Galatians 3:24. "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 5:14: "For the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
I never said you were a bad person. My point is that believing in God or not doesn't necessarily guarantee or exclude that. There have been plenty of Christian people I know that are kind, respectful and compassionate. There have also been plenty I know that are bigoted, ignorant and hateful. The same goes for atheists. You don't have to be a theist or an atheist to be a good person. I don't really mind if somebody is an atheist, as long as they aren't strident about it or don't claim that I'm somehow inferior intellectually or morally because of my beliefs. To say that somebody is more ignorant merely because they believe in God would be like saying atheists are less moral because they don't.
#300 to #293 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
My verse was a quote from Jesus, so it might win. But aside from that, you've got verses contradicting each other.
Search Bible contradictions chart if this is too small to read
#301 to #300 - iamphoenix (08/22/2012) [-]
The Law isn't passing away by being fulfilled. "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." The entire book of Galatians is dedicated to this idea.
User avatar #302 to #301 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure he meant, and this is according plenty of christians, that he made it so no more sacrifices need to be made to god. The other laws should still stand, right? Plus, I thought god's word was infallible
#304 to #302 - iamphoenix (08/22/2012) [-]
He was the sacrifice for our sins that we mightn't need to be judged under the law. Infallibility vs. fallibility isn't the question, it's about purpose. It's not that the Law is now 'wrong', but we're no longer expected to live by it. Levitican Law was for the Jews/sons of Aaron. The new covenant by Christ is/was meant for everybody.
User avatar #305 to #304 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
So, if I accept Christ as my lord and savior, I can go on a killing spree and expect salvation after death? I'm talking technically, not whether or not you would actually do that.
#306 to #305 - iamphoenix (08/22/2012) [-]
You would receive salvation, but you would also receive judgment for what you had done in your life. You will reap what you sow.
User avatar #308 to #306 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
Isn't that contradictory?
#309 to #308 - iamphoenix (08/22/2012) [-]
Not really. You'll be forgiven so long as you repent.
#313 to #309 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
That's terrible. What about all the other religions? Or atheists like me? No evidence for god has been presented, yet he'll punish me for not believing in him? Even if he provides no proof? or even hint?
#324 to #313 - iamphoenix (08/22/2012) [-]
No evidence according to you. Other people believe there's evidence and see that there's proof, so what makes you different? Merely because you deny the evidence or 'don't see it' doesn't mean that it isn't there, or that you'll never see it. Everybody is given a chance, it's their choice to take it.

Here's Batmoose since I tire of religious debates. I'm going to go do some Russian and Korean and possibly read some Paradise Lost. You have a good night, sir.
User avatar #325 to #324 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
I'm fine with people exiting debates, but not this late in the game. Show me some proof. Some tangible evidence. I used to be christian, and I finally got tired of all the cop outs I was making up in order to keep my faith, so I dropped it. Everyone is given a chance? Really? Cause I'm pretty sure plenty of people go their entire lives without hearing about Christianity. I'm also sure that other religions look at yours as you look at theirs. As stupid and wrong. You're an atheist to all the thousands of other gods ever thought of, I just had one more god than you on my "Do not believe" list.
User avatar #287 to #282 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
*asshole to most religious when the topic of religion comes up
#275 to #216 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
You're not really pointing at religious conflicts that don't have a cultural/ethnic part to them. Do you really think Hitler was angry about verses in the Talmud? Do you think he had mercy on Jews who converted to another religion? Do you think he was a deeply religious man or a fanatic who tried to use religion towards his own purpose?
User avatar #283 to #275 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
http://www.nobeliefs . com/hitler.htm
quotes from Mein Kampf
#251 to #216 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
yes to all of those things. we don't need religion to wave our dicks around and hate people who are different. we do this naturally and is actually what the bible is saying not to do (most of the time). Hitler hated Jews for much more than their religion.

IN;B4 someone posts a random Bible quote from the internet that is hateful in some way.
unless the quote is supposed to be the word of god, i don't really want to hear it.
User avatar #258 to #251 - cullenatorguy (08/21/2012) [-]
the Bible is supposed to be the word of god....
and did you even read my comment? I listed and explained how religion is responsible for a lot of pain and suffering in the world. There might still be wars and murders in an atheist world, but not as many. Atheists tend to value life more, and therefore the life of others.
#289 to #258 - anon (08/22/2012) [-]
the bible is a group of stories written, by men, using their opinions, back in a day when people were killed or maimed for stealing as often as they were adultery. its not exactly unbiased by today's definition. I'm not saying it's correct. I'm just saying its not all about killing others if they do something you disagree with, like you obviously believe
you didn't explain anything. you said "i blame religion for all these things" and I said "these things would happen without religion just as often".
Atheists have no reason to value life because they have no reason to care about it. at least religious people believe in judgement after death. as an atheist you can do whatever you want without consequences after you die.
#291 to #289 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
I could, but I'm not going to **** up this one life. I value life like you wouldn't believe.
And on what basis do you believe what you believe? If one part of the bible is false, how can you tell what's true or not?
#299 to #291 - anon (08/22/2012) [-]
and a theist could kill other people in the name of his god, but im not going to **** up my one chance of eternal happiness (you see how it works both ways?). I believe what makes the most sense to me, as any intelligent person would. It doesn't matter what's true or false. Just do what you think is right. Atheists especially should understand that.
User avatar #260 to #251 - shamefulhumor (08/21/2012) [-]
You do to justify it. So no, these extremes would not exist.
A secular person has to face his bigotry of people honestly.

Religion, in most contexts, subverts morality, and allows a rational man with petty fears to indulge in that form of tribalism. Having an unnecessary filter on reality is harmful, maybe a persona who knows better can overcome that dogmatic way of thinking, but more often then not you see people who don't have to face their ignorance with a grain of salt.
#277 to #260 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
justify what. everyone agrees the holocaust, crusades, homophobia, and other general hate groups are bad.
if you believe for a second that extremists wouldn't exist without religious then you're an idiot. they just wouldn't be based on a religion.

do you mind giving me an example of such tribalism that happens anywhere in a first world country?
so what, because I believe in god I'm going to make stupid decisions? this is only true if you are a 15 year old girl who is trying to rationalize how she treats herself. like "i'm 16, have anonymous sex, party every night, etc, but i'm sure god will forgive me." and they would easily come up with reasons that are just as bad to do stupid ****
User avatar #285 to #277 - shamefulhumor (08/22/2012) [-]
There is a term called cognitive dissonance that you would do well to look into in more then a definitional sense, the colloquial term is more appropriate for this instance.

People are not so black and white, there is a huge moral grey area that religion occupies, and subcontracts otherwise rational peoples aggressions.

A good person, can believe in, and support bad/ hateful ideas because they don't have to view the impact of it, or rationalize how their ideas are alright, and if their is a verse in their region specific holy book, (which inevitably there is, they where written thousands of years ago, and rewritten over and over by less civilized people then ourselves), there is bound to be a nice little passage about the group they are bigoted against, and somehow, believing in this book, makes it okay, not only on an introspective level, but on a social level, for some baffling reason.

And otherwise intelligent people respect their ignorance because they happen to Believe in that same fairy tale.

Now, lets for the sake of argument, say a secular person is faced with similar fears or intolerance, at the very most, they cannot justify it while being intellectually honest, I may be made uncomfortable by gay people, but because I am aware that this is my own biased opinion, and I will not act on, or mirror my bigotry in my behavior.

However an otherwise civil person who lives by the bible, and is not forced to see the effect, or face the true nature of their objection, can vote on their prejudices, and support ignorant narratives.

Good men do good things,
Bad men do good things,
But only religion can make Good men do bad things.

#297 to #285 - anon (08/22/2012) [-]
so what you are saying is atheists arent as prone to extreme beliefs and theists are automatically more likely to jump on the bandwagon and hate others because of the beliefs? for having a group of beliefs based solely on facts, you sure do jump to a lot of conclusions.

If a good man does bad things then he's not a good man is he?

the bottom line is, religious texts are supposed to encourage people to do good. if you want to take the occasional hateful opinion of a man who lived hundreds of years ago as the most important part of those religious texts, than feel free. I, on the other hand, will believe in the parts that say love thy neighbor and use common sense to judge weather or not I am doing the right thing.
User avatar #303 to #297 - shamefulhumor (08/22/2012) [-]
I'm saying our innate sense of morality is better of uninhibited by falsifiable theist claims and outdated ideologues that come with religion, good people do good things because they are predisposed to do so. Anything good that comes from religion Is incidental at most, And i think you understand that.

It is not black and white, and men who may endorse bullheaded narratives may still do good deeds, but because of their indoctrination to the communally endorsed Theistic claim, they are susceptible to settling for a primitive dialogue on controversial issues.

I know plenty of otherwise good people, who would never act on their bigotries support bigoted ideas. By rule of complacence, they may not picket funerals, they may not shout outside of abortion clinics, but because they share certain unilateral beliefs with more extreme people, laws and narratives forged in this ignorance are acceptable to them.

Therein lies my objection to religion, at least as a point of conjecture or morality; You always suffer a net loss, At the very least, we see it to be an unnecessary contention upon a standing reality or moral pragmatism , by means of usually intelligent rational people relying on something innately irrational for guidance.

I just want you to ponder this by the way, I look forward to a collected and informed response, at the very least talking about things of this nature discourages the less savory aspects of peoples opinions and ideals form surfacing in the ether.
User avatar #330 to #303 - theist (08/22/2012) [-]
Please... just please... for the love of God stop using my username. I get 100 notifications a day with links to comments like yours...
User avatar #333 to #330 - shamefulhumor (08/22/2012) [-]
(whos fault is that)
User avatar #250 to #216 - sterlingarcher (08/21/2012) [-]
Yes, those would still exist. They did back in times before religion was really developed.

AS far as the Jews, they hated them for the economical wealth and status, not their religion. So, they still would have been shunned and hated. It's all about economics and territory.
User avatar #256 to #250 - cullenatorguy (08/21/2012) [-]
Are you serious? Wars and disputes would still exist, murder would still happen, but no where near as much. The Jews were viewed as Christ killers. Do you realize how long religion has existed? Pretty much since the first time someone actually thought, "Where did all this **** come from?"
There weren't any atheist tribes or countries in ancient history. They all had their own gods, and their god always called for some form of violence to be enacted and judgement. Pretty much all holy texts call for violence, and (I'm assuming you're christian) followed your book, you'd be a much different person. You'd kill people who at shellfish, wore mixed fabrics, or worshiped a different god than you.
#262 to #256 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
no, they would happen just as often.
Were, to some extent. remember, Jesus was a Jew
so, what, just the act of believing in a god has drove people to kill each other? if these texts are teaching people to hate each other then, by your logic, people wouldn't kill each other as much before the texts were written. even if they believed in a god
old and inhumane forms of punishment are as outdated as the sticks and rocks they used as weapons when the religious texts were written
User avatar #278 to #262 - cullenatorguy (08/21/2012) [-]
I don't mean texts as recent as the Bible or Koran necessarily, any rules set by a religion cause harm when they are broken. I'm sure there were less wars and murders before any real set of rules was written. Of course man was still very savage at that point in time. They didn't move much and lived very close to each other with no way of solving their problems diplomatically. Wars and fights were to be expected. We live in a time when we can communicate with each other though, and such savagery is not needed.
User avatar #311 to #278 - sterlingarcher (08/22/2012) [-]
Also, because of religion, Priests in the old day, were considered professors and "scientists" They discovered agriculture, medicines and other invaluable things we take for granted. Religion funded all of this.
User avatar #310 to #278 - sterlingarcher (08/22/2012) [-]
Yes, religion has been around forever, but not organized religion. Subtle, but huge difference. And they the Jews were called christ killers because they killed their prophet/guide/public figure. If a group of people came to America and killed your father or family, you'd be racists too. Wasn't their religion, it was that their group did a crime against them ( or so they percieved)

As far as other religious civs, such as the Greeks and Romans, (Who weren't really religious and only used their Gods as morale boosts and guides) They used it as an excuse. Rome didn't invade Greece because they believed Jupiter could kick Zues' ass, they did it for their land, wealth and art.

I can go on for days, I've taken classes in college on this stuff lol

User avatar #315 to #310 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
Just because a religious belief isn't organized doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm. Sacrifices and such were common with unorganized religion. You must remember the crime though, not just the criminals. People hated, and some still do, the Jews because they killed their lord and savior. Their belief that the Jews are bad, race, not religion, is because they are thought as "those guys who killed my savior". Not a good name. If people hadn't thought Jesus to be god, then none of this would have ever happened.
User avatar #320 to #315 - sterlingarcher (08/22/2012) [-]
I never said religion wasn't harmful, it is. I'm just arguing that it's not as bad as people claim. Also, as a christian, I don't hate Jews and any intelligent Christian (Or person for that matter) Wouldn't hate someone because of what they're born into or believe ( that's not very christ like) So, yes the idiots that use religion the wrong way are evil, that should have no reflection on religion, but of the human race.

Yeah, people sacrificed animals back then, and back then it was normal, just like today it's normal to watch UFC, or to watch porn or go drinking in bars and in some places, such as spain and Mexico, Cock fighting is normal. It's more cultural than it is religious. In fact, I'd say that culture and religion are separate, but often interact with eachother.

User avatar #323 to #320 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
They are following the old testament, you are following the new. They contradict each other, so I guess people have to choose a side. I didn't want to pick and choose, so I got out of it. I see your point though. It is part of culture. I just think that if I was going to believe in a god, his word would be infallible.
User avatar #326 to #323 - sterlingarcher (08/22/2012) [-]
that's the problem with these religions, "which God is the real one" but to be honest... I believe in a much different way that is God. Personally, I believe God IS the universe and that the universe is experiencing itself through life (us). So Jesus, was just a collected divine interpretation of that, and was meant to guide us. that's all really. I'm kinda out there in my beliefs, but who isn't? lol
User avatar #327 to #326 - cullenatorguy (08/22/2012) [-]
Do you view Jesus as a literal or metaphorical character? If metaphorical, you're probably a pantheist. Look them up. It's basically sexed up atheism.
User avatar #331 to #327 - sterlingarcher (08/22/2012) [-]
Im not too sure yet. i believe he was a reall pson and a great one at that i guess ill find out one day lol o not
User avatar #249 to #206 - sterlingarcher (08/21/2012) [-]
THANK YOU. intelligent argument.
User avatar #248 to #168 - sterlingarcher (08/21/2012) [-]
I agree with you. Religion has causes war but the vast majority of wars are started by territory or resources, not religion. Often religion is used as a scapegoat.
#173 to #168 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
aka religion
#177 to #173 - iamphoenix (08/21/2012) [-]
You're right, there are no greedy atheists. No war has ever been started by an atheist, and only the religious cause or receive disease.
#130 - masterofpuppetz (08/21/2012) [-]
The man speaks the truth!
The man speaks the truth!
#165 - fourtardsunited ONLINE (08/21/2012) [-]
better
+21
#71 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #137 to #71 - lolfire (08/21/2012) [-]
Because JFK....liked the cross.
User avatar #95 to #71 - slaykingftw (08/21/2012) [-]
JFK is nothing like the person who he was lauded to be, he used steroids, was a sickly diseased **** , was a personal friend of nixon, was the first president to use the irs to target his political enemies, his term was so short he never really accomplished anything, and he confessed that were he not the democratic nominee, he would have voted for nixon. he supported and a okayed the horrific failure that was the bay of pigs, he had no intention of leaving the vietnam war until it was won. he got owned by khrushchev at the vienna summit conference, which partially lead to the cuban missle crisis, which he dealt with by doing essentially jack **** until the russians decided they didn't really want nuclear war. essentially he was a useless **** who never achieved anything, but because he was killed and looked good on camera everyone ******* loves him. (if you want a badass president look at TEDDY ************* ROOSEVELT)
User avatar #115 to #95 - rageisfunny (08/21/2012) [-]
Bay of Pigs would have worked if he had allowed the air support to take off. But he had to make concessions to liberal friends who though Castro was a great guy.
+1
#99 to #95 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #104 to #99 - slaykingftw (08/21/2012) [-]
JFK caused the missle crisis, he bungled cuban foreign policy like a ************* idiot and as a result they turned to the russians, and do you honestly think that jfk could have done a ************* thing to stop the russians if they had really wanted to launch those missles? jfk didn't prevent nuclear war, M.A.D. did and anyone who says otherwise clearly doesn't know a ******* thing about the cuban missle crisis other than biased one sided depictions of JFK waving his imaginary magic wand and making the russians run away with their tails between their legs.
#150 to #104 - phsycocake (08/21/2012) [-]
not that i really care because your an imaginary existence on teh other end of a screen but i just cant walk away from this for some reason. The American government in the 1960's actually had short range anti ballistic missiles that while not fully tested where fully capable of o shooting down the few missiles that would have been fired from the Cuban coast line. they also had spec ops teams fully trained and prepared to sabotage both the original bouts that the missiles where transported on and later the silos they where housed in. JFK shot down both operations in fear that this would have caused ww3 which anyone can tell you it would of. by standing by and simply poking the russians abit he put the spot light on them and forced there hand knowing full well that they did not want a nuclear war. he handled the Cuban missile crises perfectly. any historian will tell you that if it had been Nixon in charge we would all be living fallout 3 right now. as far as creating the events that lead to the crises it was really a no win scenario. having a communist state so close to home was a real threat and Castro was out of control so the us stance on Cuban affairs while little blunt where far from unfair. now here is a funny picture of castro because this sight is for lols
#134 to #104 - combatex (08/21/2012) [-]
In a way you're being really biased by putting the whole blame on JFK and he wasn't a complete jackass. Yes, his embargo on Cuba forced Castro to turn to the Soviets, but you're forgetting that Khrushchev was also a rather brash person and that he unhesitantly placed nuclear weapons (a big no no to the Presidium) right in America's doorstep. Also, M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) was the reason why JFK and later the Russians reduced their nuclear arsenal after the CMC (S.A.L.T 1 and 2, Moscow-Washington hotline), showing that JFK isn't the total moron he's made out to be.

On a personal note, you should look up the historical schools of thought if you're interested in the Cold War. Clearly you know that the orthodox perspective is wanking the American side, sorry for the tldr i did IB higher level history back in High School.
#164 to #71 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
Actually, several presidents were Deists.
0
#217 to #164 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#222 to #217 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#224 to #222 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#226 to #224 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #76 to #71 - thelonelyfeel (08/21/2012) [-]
Protestant is a branch of Christianity. Christianity is just the word used to describe all forms of worship that follow the same god.

Catholicism, Portestant, Lutheran, Etc.
+1
#79 to #76 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #82 to #79 - thelonelyfeel (08/21/2012) [-]
Aah I getcha, I thought you were saying they weren't christian.
User avatar #86 to #76 - attifyon (08/21/2012) [-]
Actually, Christianity is used to describe all forms of worship that follow the rules sent by God in form of Bible. Most of the single-god religions follow the same god, even though the words are different.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I just wanted to get that out of the way. It really rustle my jimmies when people act like there is a seperate creator in every religion.
User avatar #92 to #86 - tepeniam (08/21/2012) [-]
The way I see it, Christians (of which I'm 1), Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God, which to Christians is God the Father. However, Christians also worship the Son and Holy Ghost, forming a triune God.
User avatar #295 to #86 - rageisfunny (08/22/2012) [-]
Christians are anyone who believe that Christ was the Son of God and died for our sins. Hence, Mormons aren't Christians.
User avatar #96 to #71 - crowcolin (08/21/2012) [-]
hi mean, he'd be way more boss if he wasn't Catholic. Never seen such a ******** religion with a ****** past
#139 to #96 - phsycocake (08/21/2012) [-]
apparently my friend you have never heard of Mormon or Scientology.
#149 to #139 - bgbba (08/21/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #112 to #96 - rageisfunny (08/21/2012) [-]
How is it such a ******** religion? BTW I'm Catholic.
#122 to #112 - TheCodFather (08/21/2012) [-]
By reading holy abrahamic sciptures you can see your God kills his own creations for being imperfect (thats like blaming your ****** paintings for being ****** , YOU are the artist!)

Oh and the fact that the Pope and generally the Catholic church tries to hide its paedophile crimes and protect the priests before anything else

Sending missionaries to Africa to help aids victims, but also telling them to not wear condoms because its a sin...

its very wishy washy, one day it supports slavery, the next it does not

flip-flop flip-flop flip-flop
#186 to #122 - anon (08/21/2012) [-]
1. God gave us free will, so its not that we're imperfect, its that we choose to disobey God. Also that was Old Testament and Jesus died for us so that hasnt happened in a long time.
2. Pope Benedict XVI has talked about the scandal numerous times. Also its not like we think its okay. Every Catholic knows that what they did was a sin and it would be ridiculous for those priests to continue the priesthood.
3. a) they arent forcing them to not use a condom, theyre trying to tell them to not have sex because no sex is the best condom. (unless they were married then sex is okay).
b)theyre still helping is that such a bad thing?
4. As for slavery it was more like an amendment to the constitution. THey viewed it one way before and they amended their view. Once. It hasnt been back and forth.
User avatar #176 to #122 - rageisfunny (08/21/2012) [-]
Are you referring to the Flood?

They could have handled it better when it was first recognized, yes. However, no one person or organization is perfect, they all have flaws.

The Pope made a statement regarding male prostitutes, saying it is a good idea to help stop the spread of disease. (Do you know why Catholics are against contraceptives in the first place?)

And what is this about slavery?

Not trying to start a flame war or anything just trying to possibly answer some of your questions.
User avatar #332 to #176 - TheCodFather (08/22/2012) [-]
You answered no questions

before said god created the universe he already knew everything about everyone, so he knew about murderers, rapists, pedophiles and he let them be, knowing he created them to do that but punishing them for that

and if he did not know that would be their actions because he created them like that then that means he is not all powerful and all seeing or that simple humans are more powerful than him and can choose differently from what he wants us to do or that the DEVIL is more powerful than him and can lead people away from gods path


either way its bronze age explanations for stuff we now have scientific knowledge for
User avatar #334 to #332 - rageisfunny (08/22/2012) [-]
The Bible says God created man with free-will. He didn't create them to be murderers, rapists and pedophiles. They fell into sin because they were tempted and they chose to eat the apple, because they had the ability to do so. Not everything that happens is God's fault. Humans caused that to happen.
User avatar #335 to #334 - TheCodFather (08/23/2012) [-]
God knew adam and eve would eat from the tree before he created them, the tree, or his fallen angel that tempted them

that shows he never gave a **** about humans, he finds this whole pre-thought out plan amusing

either way if God is real and if its YOUR selfish jealous unjust abrahamic God that is real then i am glad for satan, for he gave humans knowledge


and just out of common sense, would you not think the earlier religions are more likely to be correct? why do the indigenous Australians believe animalism and natives in peru etc believe different things?

Why has god been sending those natives to hell for not accepting jesus christ, they had no idea that there were even white people in this world till late on....

i say now that THAT is evidence that all religions are products of ignorant humans who knew nothing of anything outside their small population
User avatar #336 to #335 - rageisfunny (08/23/2012) [-]
Now I'm not 100% on the Adam and Eve thing, and what God did or didn't know so I'm not going to try and argue it just for the reason that I could be wrong.

Why would those religions make more sense? Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church, so why would another religion be correct? And they are not sent to hell. IF they have no opportunity to learn about the Church and no opportunity to join it, they are not sent to Hell. Where did you get your information on that? Just curious.
User avatar #337 to #336 - TheCodFather (08/23/2012) [-]
" IF they have no opportunity to learn about the Church and no opportunity to join it, they are not sent to Hell."

I take it some priest made that up just to appeal to everyone so it seems like Christianity is not mean, just like the catholic church supported slavery, then when the general population opposed it they jumped ships to opposing it as well

tell me a part in the bible that says "IF they have no opportunity to learn about the Church and no opportunity to join it, they are not sent to Hell." or something similar

Here are some things that could make animism more likely to be correct than any abrahamic religion

1) It is the first religion, worshipping animal spirits and asking for their help makes perfect sense to a hunter/gatherer way of life making it more likely that it is true?
2) Animals exist, they worship animal spirits, and ask animals to help them and animals DO help people, dolphins with drowning sailors, dogs with their owners trapped, even gorillas and lions protected little children that have fallen into their enclosure

As for monotheism and Christianity you cant even come up with premises that fit the conclusion like that

Plus, all the stuff of Jesus were not documented or written like a diary, they were written atleast a good 100 years after the supposed jesus had died

that means he did not establish the catholic church, other people did, the bible is a translation of a translation of a copy of a translation..... its not scientifically accurate by ANY stretch of the imagination

User avatar #338 to #337 - rageisfunny (08/23/2012) [-]
He told Peter to establish the Church. The Catholic Church does not subscribe to the idea of Sola Scriptura, we also believe in works and tradition. If people went to Hell even if not given an opportunity to learn about God, then God would be a cruel God indeed. Just because it isn't in the Bible does not mean it isn't something the catholic Church teaches. Yes they were written by his disciples, who were all eyewitness to a lot of his miracles, doings, etc. The fact that no one disputed the books of the bible means no one disagreed with what was written in it. Yes, Protestants use ****** forms of the bible with books missing and things watered down to fit their religion. And no **** it's been translated multiple times because it wasn't written in English. Are you suggesting that everyone learn Hebrew and greek to read original copies of the Bible? That ridiculous, and there is only one original of each book, so of course there are multiple copies all around the world in different languages so everyone can get a chance to read it.

>animals save people so animal spirits are the most likely gods?
>wut.jpg
User avatar #339 to #338 - TheCodFather (08/24/2012) [-]
There does NOT HAVE TO BE A GOD

they worshipped animal spirits, if you actually take some time and watch this video www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU you will see there is no need for there to be a god for the universe to exist

animism does not claim anything that contradicts science, therefore its more likely to be true. Your only stance against that would be "animals dont have souls" well thats your opinion from the biast stand point that your christian god is correct and exists, he says animals dont have souls, therefore animals dont have spirits and animism is wrong

and it was written by men decades after jesus died, so what makes you think it was accurate, remember they did not live as long as we do now adays so it was more generations than you'd get nowadays

"Just because it isn't in the Bible does not mean it isn't something the catholic Church teaches." right ok so they make it up as they go along? like i said like with slavery they CHANGED their opinions on things to be the same as the developing morals of society as a whole

The bible is immoral and yes your God would be a cruel god, repeatedly killing people, the world and telling moses to kill his enemies but to keep the virgins for himself etc etc

hm, that is one just god aint it? no scripture is the word of god its the words of biast prejudice men who did not know anything beyond themselves in a bronze age world, desert tribes.. that is all. We have advanced enough to disprove all stupid miracle claims. Science proves there is no need for a god and secular morals are more morally right than any religious morals are
User avatar #340 to #339 - rageisfunny (08/24/2012) [-]
You are clearly biased against Christianity for some reason.

Science and religion can and do mix. I don't know why you think they don't.

It is more likely that there is a Creator, and easier to believe, then life just happened from primordial ooze.

And your obviously lacking knowledge of the Bible. You can take certain things from any book or speech, take it out of context, and of course it sounds bad. You have to take the Bible as a whole and realize that the Old and New Testament are completely different and that we don't follow the Covenant from the Old Testament anymore.
User avatar #342 to #340 - TheCodFather (08/25/2012) [-]
"It is more likely that there is a Creator, and easier to believe, then life just happened from primordial ooze."

if that is why you believe in god then if you were not scientifically ignorant you would most likely not believe the need for there to be a god for anything in the universe to of happened


immoral teachings are synonymous with religion, secularism is by far more moral, accepting people and personal opinions from all walks of life

and id say any critical thinker could see that Catholicism in particular is not a nice thing. By no means...
User avatar #343 to #342 - rageisfunny (08/25/2012) [-]
Hey man, obviously neither of us are going to change the others mind. So I wish you a good life, and hope we can both walk away from this with some new knowledge.
User avatar #97 to #96 - slaykingftw (08/21/2012) [-]
refer to comment #95, jfk was a peice of **** president
User avatar #100 to #97 - crowcolin (08/21/2012) [-]
I've seen all this ******** before, and i choose not to believe it just as you choose to believe it. And while T.R. was great, F.D.R. Did way more to try and help our country than anyone else in my opinion.
#106 to #100 - lurchensteinseven (08/21/2012) [-]
True but T.R. made us a global power, and he is without a doubt one of the most badass people to ever exist.
User avatar #101 to #100 - slaykingftw (08/21/2012) [-]
T.R. secured our place as a global superpower, and F.D.R. didn't even succeed in fixing the great depression, the onset of the second world war is what ended it. all F.D.R. did was give us a **** ton of band aids.
User avatar #77 to #71 - deathzor (08/21/2012) [-]
Shame the poor guy had his face blown off :(
+1
#80 to #77 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #98 to #77 - slaykingftw (08/21/2012) [-]
refer to #95, jfk was a ****** president
User avatar #108 to #98 - deathzor (08/21/2012) [-]
he still had his face blown off. I don't give a **** how bad of a president he was. He didn't deserve to be shot like that.
User avatar #109 to #108 - slaykingftw (08/21/2012) [-]
you win this round exceedingly reasonable man
User avatar #140 - maxoverderp (08/21/2012) [-]
I love John Stewart
User avatar #245 - mtflyer (08/21/2012) [-]
Religion is not that bad, but it is the few extremists that give the rest of us a bad name.
User avatar #254 to #245 - puchinbola (08/21/2012) [-]
It is not bad, it's just unnecessary.
User avatar #271 to #254 - thedarkhavok (08/21/2012) [-]
Saying religion is unnecessary at present is just foolish. I am an Atheist, but it doesn't change the fact that there are many cultures built entirely upon certain religions. It creates cultural diversity and the fact is it makes the world a more interesting place.
User avatar #274 to #271 - puchinbola (08/21/2012) [-]
It also closes the brains of many people to anything further than their dogma.
Any religion, despite creating "cultural diversity", is oly good if it's a free choice.
And it isn't often a free choice.
Religions should just stay in the bookshelves they come from, and start believing in ourselves.
User avatar #279 to #274 - thedarkhavok (08/21/2012) [-]
I would say about 0.5% of religious people devote their entire life to it. To say religion isn't a free choice is just ignorant, sure you can be influenced by an upbringing and a culture but unless the education isn't provided in the first place, they are perfectly capable of making an objective decision. If there isn't the resources available to educate them into a free choice in the first place, then the religion isn't the issue, the economy is. You may be an atheist, but frankly I expect far more intelligence from somebody who outwardly believes something that hasn't been disproved is non-existent. Also, don't rant on about free will when determinism is a seriously valid theory, which is applicable to all human beings.
User avatar #286 to #279 - puchinbola (08/22/2012) [-]
I'm not atheist, I just say life can be so random and nice that I think it's a waste to argue about something that could or could not have created everything, or that moves it. If it exists, nice, if it doesn't, nice too.
Kinda agnostic.
All that **** is not the pure truth, I am not talking about the facts or whatever of actual religions, if it takes all that minding about it, when nobody gets nothing for it, and when this world has greater problems, seems idiot to even care about religion.
User avatar #294 to #286 - thedarkhavok (08/22/2012) [-]
Now you're just being hypocritical. The main purpose of religion (at least in my opinion) is for reassurance BECAUSE life is short. Yet you believe that life is too short to argue about religion? You either care about the long term pursuit of knowledge or you care about having the best life possible, why randomly ignore religion if you're going to have a short life, why not make the most of it if you actually don't give a **** about the truth?
User avatar #298 to #294 - puchinbola (08/22/2012) [-]
Because I've thought about religion. And i think it isn't worth it.
And shut up, you won't find the sentence "life is too short to think about religion" in any of my comments.
Just saying that there are better things to care about, specially when you're talking about something that might or might not be true.
And specially when it separates people.
Please stop this.
User avatar #268 to #245 - willowpuff (08/21/2012) [-]
Yup.
And the same goes for atheists. Just let each other get on with their **** .
-2
#292 to #268 - mtflyer has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #65 - I Am Monkey (08/21/2012) [-]
I'm not saying there's a "War On Religion" or anything like that. But some people really do take it too far with "separation of church and state". In my high school there could be no mention of religion whatsoever" They'd correct you if you said "God bless you" or "merry Christmas".
User avatar #78 to #65 - thelonelyfeel (08/21/2012) [-]
Christmas is not a religious holiday and when people get that through their head I will be able to die happily.
+2
#85 to #78 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #102 to #85 - thelonelyfeel (08/21/2012) [-]
This is my version of christmas and the one I celebrate. I say it is by me because it may be fictional idk for sure I may have heard it somewhere.

A man named saint nikolas lived in the outskirts of a village in germany. Every year around december the winters got extremely cold and people could not do much so they were always depressed. One day nikolas decided to do something to cheer the village up. He widdled some wooden toys and put on the thickest clothes he could find. He would then tread through the snow storms to the village and leave a toy on a porch for every child. Nikolas did this every year and every year the snow storms got worse, to help him see the families would put a candle in the window so he knew which houses didn't get toys. Eventually the villagers all chipped in and made him a suit of fur to keep him from freezing and provided him with a reindeer and a sleigh to help him make it through the snow. From that day forth every year he would put on his suit and ride into the village bringing a new toy for each child. To show they cared the people would cut down evergreens and put them in from of their windows for nikolas to see with the toys from previous years decorating it. Nikolas would do this every year until the day he died.

This is, in short the version I was taught by my German grandparents. And the real Saint Nikolas did live in germany back in like the 1600's or some **** .
Also It was original called "krismas" but was called "chrismas" later on and eventually "Christmas" when adopted by the church who taught people falsely.

Idc if people don't follow the same version I do but I would at least like them to learn the real story and why we give each other gifts instead of being greedy ***** .








User avatar #121 to #78 - nerdierguy (08/21/2012) [-]
Name means "Mass of Christ".
Not the most obnoxiously Catholic holiday possible.
+1
#169 to #121 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #170 to #169 - nerdierguy (08/21/2012) [-]
Only the date, not the actual holiday.
User avatar #128 to #65 - slumberdonkey (08/21/2012) [-]
Ok, i'm an atheist, but stopping people from saying "god bless you" is stupid... did you know that good bye comes from god be with you?
User avatar #6 - Maroon ONLINE (08/21/2012) [-]
Lol, no one is waging war against Christians. Everyone else just has to defend from the constant stream of BS from Christians.
User avatar #207 to #6 - Krystoking (08/21/2012) [-]
Then again, even though it was sarcasm, Christianity is usually the target of media attacks, since it's more "politically correct" not to bash other religions.
User avatar #7 to #6 - ewowo (08/21/2012) [-]
*hint* it's sarcasm.
#8 to #7 - Maroon ONLINE (08/21/2012) [-]
I know... I wasn't... 			****		 it.
I know... I wasn't... **** it.
User avatar #9 to #8 - ewowo (08/21/2012) [-]
It just seems from the comments that people are taking this seriously.
[ 332 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)