Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBOC)   Movie gets PG rating for "being too religious"   (wboc.com) divider line 335
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

24869 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2006 at 12:59 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-10 03:23:28 PM  
clifton

Robertson and Falwell are symptomatic of what's wrong with Christianity. I believe the vast majority of Christians are generally good people who just want to work hard, raise a family and live their lives.

Those two bumbling fools are dangerous people. I think the bible warned against people like them. "False Preachers" I call them. They're nothing more than slime that distorts the bible for their own gain.

And if Robertson can leg press 2000 pounds, then I'm Jesus.

/Back to the World Cup.
 
2006-06-10 03:25:47 PM  
octo - Atheism is only not a religon in the barest technical sense? That is the most ignorant thing I've read on Fark in a few weeks.

Although some atheists my have a religious-like approach to atheism, most of them simply do not believe in god. They do not believe in god because this is where reason and skepticism lead all people who do not have a bias in favor of religion (and don't fall into some logical trap).

There have been people who do not believe in god for centuries, including some Founding Fathers fwiw. Atheism is not some modernist fad, much less a social club, as ignorant Christians love to tell themselves. Atheism is the normal position of rational people in the modern world who do not have a bias toward religion.

Know your enemy please.


First off, your not my enemy... In fact, although I guess I'd technically brand myself as an agnostic... I'm probably closer to the very definition of atheism I was refuting than half the guys on here who spout it.

I spend almost no time thinking about religion. I don't know what I believe because it hasn't been a priority for me to figure it out. I believe people should treat each other well, beyond that...

If you'd read my other posts, you might have a clearer picture of where I'm coming from.

Many atheists (maybe even the majority, I don't know) may truly simply not believe in a god, or may say "hey, there's no evidence for the existence of a god, so it's a moot point," and move on with their lives, and for them I'd say that definition holds.

However, quite a lot vigorously "believe" that there is no God, and they "practice" their "non"-belief with all of the same fervent organization, evangelism, self-righteousness, superioritiy, condescencion, fury and condemnation of the Bible-thumpingest hellfire and brimstoners.

To say that isn't a "religion?" particularly from a social standpoint... That's about as disingenuous as saying four quarters isn't a dollar.

Moreover, my issue with that definition being bandied about is that it's frequently the platform from which the more fervent... engage in a sort of "have their cake and eat it too" claim of presumably unassailable superiority.

"There is no god!!! There is no god!!! You're completely stupid for believing in some invisible sky-wizard, because THERE IS NO GOD!!!"

"Well, that's your belief..."

"It's not a belief! It's the absence of belief!!! Science can't acknowledge or believe what it can't demonstrate or prove, and you can't prove there's a god... It's simple logic... I'm right! You're a moronic dickface!"

By playing that game, they're asserting a belief... They're actively and vigorously asserting that God doesn't exist. However, by claiming that it's not a "belief..." they feel they can turn around and say that the only one who has any burden of proof is the guy who does believe.

Well, it's kinda bullshiat... If you truly just have an -absence- of belief, then what is there to talk about? What is there to say except "I can't believe it till I see some proof."

You even presented a pretty good example of how that particular blade is erroneously wielded, "Atheism is the normal position of rational people in the modern world." No... it's a common position of rational people who value demonstrable scientific knowledge above all else. It is entirely possible for a completely rational person to believe that something may exist outside of the bounds of measurable, quantifiable and repeatable scientific methodology.

Simply because you prioritize the scientific method in your life does not mean it's irrational for someone else to believe that something may exist beyond the scope of our currently verifiable knowledge.

In short, just because you require proof... just because it's the priority in your own life, it doesn't mean that someone else is irrational, naive, or unintelligent for seeing value in faith and making that a priority in their own lives.

While the scientific method is objective... belief is subjective, the degree of importance the scientific method has in someone's personal life is subjective. Claiming superiority because in your personal life, you prioritize it over faith, is about as logical as saying the Beatles are better than Britney Spears. 90% of the world just might agree with you, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a subjective opinion.
 
2006-06-10 03:27:49 PM  
"You're not my enemy..."
 
2006-06-10 03:32:42 PM  
I'm sorry (but not at all surprised, given the subject) to see this turn into a religious flamewar. To me, this is just another example of how perfectly arbitrary the MPAA is.

The MPAA is a bad organization. It has offered absolutely no criteria for its ratings and has, repeatedly, some up with ratings that make no sense. Worse, there's some fairly good, albeit circumstantial, evidence that it tends to favor major productions over independent productions, meaning that an indie flick is much more likely to get an R for the same content that would yield a PG-13 if it were put out by a big studio.

I can unerstand the need for ratings but I think that we need to replace the secretive MPAA with a public ratings system that's based on objective criteria.

I'll let everyone get back to arguing religion, now.
 
2006-06-10 03:40:26 PM  
JestersTear: "So do you always argue by building strawmen?"

Strawmen? Do you even understand what that means? Hyperbole is not a strawman argument. On the other hand, saying that the reverend is "scream(ing) religious persecution" without any support for it in the article sounds like a better example.

JestersTear: "Wow, such ignorance. Did you even pay attention to what was being said, or are you just looking for any reason to act like an ass? ...It looks like he is claiming false persecution to drum up publicity for his film."

I suppose it's easier for you call me an ignorant ass than actually read the text from the link. Did I pay attention to what was said? Where's the Ironic tag when you need it? Apparently I don't have your magical contact lenses that allow you to read all of this "persecution" from between the lines. Would you like to quote the reverend's claims of persecution, so the rest of us ignorant asses can bask in your intellectual radiance? If you can't quote it, then are you just looking for any reason to act like an ass?

Here's a tip, my logically-challenged friend. Don't accuse other people of doing something, then do those very things in the process. (You might let on more about yourself than you want to)
 
2006-06-10 04:07:10 PM  
anrwlias - I'm sorry (but not at all surprised, given the subject) to see this turn into a religious flamewar. To me, this is just another example of how perfectly arbitrary the MPAA is.

The MPAA is a bad organization. It has offered absolutely no criteria for its ratings and has, repeatedly, some up with ratings that make no sense. Worse, there's some fairly good, albeit circumstantial, evidence that it tends to favor major productions over independent productions, meaning that an indie flick is much more likely to get an R for the same content that would yield a PG-13 if it were put out by a big studio.

I can unerstand the need for ratings but I think that we need to replace the secretive MPAA with a public ratings system that's based on objective criteria.

I'll let everyone get back to arguing religion, now.


Without disagreeing with you, I would like to mention that the MPAA rating procedure is entirely voluntary. Absolutely no one is required to have their film rated by the MPAA. They are also perfectly free to refuse the MPAA's judgement and release it unrated.

Granted, they will in all likelihood find that very few, if any distributors or theaters will touch an unrated movie regardless off it's content, but in all honesty I have to chalk that up to "nobody owes you a platform." Just as you're not required to subject yourself to the MPAA's judgement, no one is required to show your film.

The ratings board was a response by the studios, distributors, and exhibitors to an increasing call for regulation and censorship of the film industry... which would have legally bound filmmakers to certain criteria.

While I think it's an imperfect system, and I share your view of much of what you've already mentioned, I think it beats what the alternative would have been. Moreover, all in all I think they do a pretty decent job all things considered.

They'd never please everyone. No matter what system was put in place someone would take issue with it... and someone would always object to the rating they received. Some group would always object that this movie got too low a rating... some other group would always complain that it got too high a rating... and that's just if you stuck to quantifiable, more easily defined content like profanity, nudity, or violence. Start throwing thematic elements like religion, politics, homosexuality, drug addiction, magic, etc., etc. and people really raise the roof.
 
2006-06-10 04:07:11 PM  
Mija
Your religion is silly. It's my opinion and I have a right to say it out loud. What happens is you feel "under attack" because secretly you wonder if it could possibly be true. If you had a strong faith you'd pass by and say to yourself "well, anyone can have an opinion" and shrug it off. You talk about your religion all the time, but when I talk about atheism, suddenly you're being "persecuted". I'm guessing you're not a jew, so please don't use the term. As a latina in California, I seriously doubt you've ever suffered persecution in your life. Perhaps a little bias, but not persecution.

Here are some websites you might want to read that contain information that you probably haven't seen:

http://www.skeptic.com/index.html
http://www.infidels.org/
http://www.atheists.org/

No poppyness, due to lack of skills.
 
2006-06-10 04:21:11 PM  
The MPAA is img.fark.com. They are doing a great job of being bigger pecker heads than the RIAA.

/MPAA and RIAA
//can both suck it
 
2006-06-10 04:23:15 PM  
Fark this movie right in the ear. Like God gives a rat's rear about how well your football team does. If God helps sports teams win but doesn't say stop children in Africa from getting raped with machetes, He has his priorities mixed up. If this movie is going to make kids want to believe in Jesus for all the wrong reasons e.g. success in arbitrary activities that do not really better the world that much, it really is a brainwashing film. As a Christian, I find this movie preposterous and downright insulting.

/didn't read the thread, hopefully someone said something similar already
 
2006-06-10 04:37:02 PM  
Mija - The open persecution of Christians is really getting out of hand. Angry Little Atheist Syndrome. Atheists are the ones forcing their views on everyone and instisting we all fall in line with their thinking. Hypocrite much?

The only view being forced on you is that you can't force your view on someone else... that you can't compel others to be exposed to your beliefs.

Has anyone asked you not to pray? No.
Has anyone asked you not to pray in school? No.
You have been asked not to lead group prayer in compulsory events. (e.g. Please don't lead the class in a morning prayer, because all of the students are required to attend the class and thus you are compelling them to subject themselves to your beliefs.)

Has anyone asked you not to believe in creationism? No.
Has anyone asked you not to preach creationsim? No.
Has anyone asked you not to teach creationsim to your children? No.
You have been asked not to insert it into school curricula because it is a BELIEF not based on verifiable evidence, and by inserting it into textbooks you are compelling those same students who may not share that belief (who again, are required to attend) to subject themselves to it.

Has anyone told you that you couldn't put a ten commandments monument on your front lawn?
Has anyone told you that you couldn't put a ten commandments monument on your church's lawn?
Has anyone told you that you can't paint a 15' Jesus on the front of your house? No. (unless your neighborhood has agreed upon covenants or your city has an ordinance addressing giant paintings on the exterior of your home, but you still aren't being singled out, because someone couldn't paint a 15' Buddha, or Vishnu, or Barry Bonds on their home either.)
You have only been asked to keep them off of public (i.e. government-owned) properties, because the government is meant to represent us all... and the only truly effective way to do that is by not representing any one of us in particular.

You're not being persecuted. Nothing is being forced on you except the idea that YOU should not force anything on others... The logic you guys are using is akin to saying "My downstairs neighbor called the police on me because I had my stereo turned all the way up!!! What right does he have to tell me I can't turn my stereo all the way up!?!?! It's my stereo, I should be able to turn it up as loud as I want!!!He's persecuting me!!!" It's childish and selfish... It's 'I want what I want, no matter what and anybody who doesn't give in to me is oppressing me!'

I challenge any one of you to show me one single example of how you're being persecuted. Show me one way in which your right to practice your religion without forcibly imposing it upon others is being curttailed.
 
2006-06-10 04:56:39 PM  
Mija
The open persecution of Christians is really getting out of hand. Angry Little Atheist Syndrome. Atheists are the ones forcing their views on everyone and instisting we all fall in line with their thinking. Hypocrite much?

First people start saying "Happy Holidays", then some hippy judge says you can't display the 10 commandments (7 of which are overtly religious) in front of government buildings, now this! Can't you see we're one step away from christian death camps and feeding them to lions in sports arenas?? It's obvious to anyone with a massive chip on their shoulder.

80% of the country, all 3 branches of government, 24 hour preachy Jesus channels and you people still want to play the put upon little martyrs, persecuted for their faith. I guess the whole Christian identity comes from turning a slight into a grave insult and a request for a little empathy and common sense into nazi level persecution.

Nobody's asking you to stop believing, we're asking you to leave the rest of the fark alone and shut the fark up already. Don't worry, we already know about Jesus. If we all of a sudden need a good brainwashing and 10% less money we know where to find you.
 
2006-06-10 05:36:01 PM  
Statements that very few people should find offensive, but some people might:

1. Angry Atheist Syndrome does exist, but it seems to be less common than Annoying Pseudo-Christian Syndrome.

2. Everyone doesn't need to be a Christian. It says in the Bible that whoever does good does it in the name of the Lord. Some of you non-Christians may actually be serving God better than Christians. I mean, if God exists, who is He gonna like more: the person who pretends to be His friend, or the person who doesn't know Him at all yet carries out His agenda expecting no reward? John 3:16 is not the only verse in the Bible.

3. I wouldn't be shocked if most Christians in the U.S. are Christians for selfish reasons, see above.

4. Christian bands suck. Jesus would play this show for free (obscure?).

5. Evolution is real, and it is incredible. There is a time and place for everything, and that includes certain attributes of organisms. Creationism is an insult to God. It makes Him seem overly simple.

6. Quit asking me if I've been saved. You see me walk into a different church than you, and for some stupid reason you think all we do in there is sacrifice baby animals or something. I find it insulting that people of the same religion yet different denominations seem to think their denomination is the best. I'm cool with yours, why can't you be cool with mine?

7. God doesn't hate homosexuals or shellfish. He just hates AIDS and parasites.
 
2006-06-10 06:43:53 PM  
technicolor

First of all I still don't buy your characterization of these certain atheists who are just like religionists, but whatever, that's a minor point.

The real error in what you write is when you say atheism is "a common position of rational people who value demonstrable scientific knowledge above all else".

This is completely false and seriously misrepresents the whole God question.

There is no necessary connection between "valuing scientific knowledge" and atheism, and there is certainly no necessary connection to "valuing scientific evidence above all else".

The reason is there is no "all else". The *only* alternative to reason as a source of knowledge about God is revelation. (Not faith, which by definition is not a source of knowledge... it is a source of belief.)

Therefore unless someone personally claims to have revelational knowledge of God, their only basis for deciding the existence of God is reason. (Also note that the scientific method is a subset of reason... the God question is not a scientific question since God is supposed to be supernatural. The issue is whether this supernatural claim should be believed, not whether it can be proven scientifically... everyone knows it can't.)

What religionists and you so often seem to overlook is that for a rational/skeptical person, the original premise has to be that God does not exists.

There is a complete absence of positive evidence for God, the supposed historical record of God's existence (the bible) has been proven false in innumerable particulars and has to be weighed against a virtually infinite body of scientific observations of the physical world that rule out the possibility of supernatural phenomena. The only reason that a rational person *should* believe in God is because of revelational knowledge. (Which is really just empirical knowledge of God.)

Back to my first point. You seem to think that a person chooses "science" over religion, and either choice is a matter of faith. This is bogus. One could in theory be some weirdo antirationalist who thinks science is false but still doesn't believe in God.

The assertion of God's existence is the thing that has to be proved or at least supported if someone wants to be a rational religionist. It is FALSE to say that only by "choosing science" does one come to disbelieve in God. There is no necessary correlation between how much authority one ascribes to science and whether one believes in God.
 
2006-06-10 06:54:38 PM  
fine with me. children should have parents with them to point out the bullshiat.
 
2006-06-10 08:13:08 PM  
you're all DARKSIDED!!!!
 
2006-06-10 08:15:13 PM  
im LOPSIDED
 
2006-06-10 08:30:57 PM  
FWIW: per the MPAA, the rating of this film is "PG for thematic elements."

They *don't* specify what kinds of themes - I wholeheartedly disagree with this kind of vagueness, regardless of the actual reason. Almost makes me feel like maybe there is an agenda by the MPAA ratings people...who are supposed to be neutral.
 
2006-06-10 08:50:29 PM  
I like the way the Rev. Alex Kendrick used the word "religious" to mean "sectarian Protestant Christian." You do know there's more than one religion, dontcha Rev. Alex?

I'm also kinda curious as to precisely what sectarian Protestant Christian material's in it that requires parental guidance. It's hard to imagine, I guess, without seeing it or at least reading a review. As it didn't earn an "R," I presume it isn't red-lit naked sinners writhing in Hell fire or gory Jesus under the lash for a half-hour or anything spicy like that. As it didn't earn the coveted triple "X," I assume it didn't follow 2nd Samuel et seq. in close, oh so close detail, but some porno producer's got to make that movie someday, with set design following Henry Fusili...
 
2006-06-10 08:51:42 PM  
it is more logical to rate this as "requiring parental guidance" considering that it encourages a specific ideology which might be objectionable to some.

Please, this is fark. Refrain from making wonderfully logical and concise statements to explain your point of view.

If you don't have an insulting generalization to make about somebody, please leave this thread.

Thank you.
 
2006-06-10 08:55:30 PM  
Nobody's asking you to stop believing, we're asking you to leave the rest of the fark alone and shut the fark up already. Don't worry, we already know about Jesus. If we all of a sudden need a good brainwashing and 10% less money we know where to find you.

Can I use this next time I'm asked to sign a petition for school prayer?
 
2006-06-10 09:23:50 PM  
Really, between technicolor-misfit and suicidebooth, there isn't any more to say about "persecution." Perfectly thought out posts, you two!

Oh and just FYI.. you want to talk persecuted? Try being a Neo-Pagan Witch. See? I know you had a knee jerk reaction to that. Listen... most of us are and have been saying, "Do your thing and let me do mine." Isn't that what America is all about?
 
2006-06-10 10:18:15 PM  
Purple Cow

I have a friend who is a Pagan. It seems like not many people are willing to take his religious beliefs seriously, even though he's done his research and he knows more about all religions than virtually anyone I know. You're right, Pagans probably get more flack than anyone else. I've heard you guys even have trouble getting your religious symbols on your headstones at military cemeteries.

So yeah, "persecuted" Christians stfu.
 
2006-06-10 11:01:22 PM  
technicolor-misfit

It's essentially the base line for any movie that has any remotely adult themes in it. (not adult as in bad or dirty, adult as in complex and/or significant) Your views on religion are a significant pillar in the framework that makes up your worldview. As such, I'd say it's a pretty adult theme.

I agree with this and it just underlines the strategy at work here. The Church knows that you are more impressionable and far more like likely to buy into the idea of a big, invisible, omnipotent being at a young age. So, by the time you're old enough to question it, it's already been imprinted on your psyche at a time when it was easier to swallow- when you were a child.

Even if you can get out of your childhood w/o buying into the "miracle of God" I think it still pre-disposes a person to fall back to it at a later time in life if you've the the stuff rammed home as a child.
 
2006-06-11 03:08:25 AM  
Metaluna Mutant: REMINDER: The use of teleportation devices, weapons, and religion are strictly prohibited.

Platform 1 had such strict rules. The steward was quite a stickler.
 
2006-06-11 05:53:14 AM  
as someone who doesn't believe in god, it is very satisfying when i defeat someone religious at a game of skill, especially if they pray to win. it is satisfying, becuase, unlike the religious, I know that my win is due to my own ability, not some god tipping the scale to help me 'cheat.'

the football team in the movie should be kicked out of the league for cheating. if you can't win without the help of some 'god' then you shouldn't be playing the game! :p
 
2006-06-11 06:05:20 AM  
I would just like to refer everyone to Gecko Gingrich's Boobies at 2006-06-09 07:04:14 PM

I think this sums it up.

and i think everyone needs to chill a bit. but that won't happen anytime in the near future, i'm sure....
 
2006-06-11 08:10:50 AM  
Here, movies get tagged with the warning 'supernatural themes' if they mention witchcraft, but oddly this never applies to movies about Christianity...which frankly, is pretty damn supernatural.
 
2006-06-11 02:47:08 PM  
I can prove using logic and reason that there is no god.

'but wait a minute, isnt it impossible to prove a negative?'

no it is not impossible to prove a negative. Granted it is impossible to prove *some* negatives, just as it is impossible to prove *some* positives. Here is an example...

negative statement -- "Circles do not have corners"

Since a circle is defined as "A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center." then it is impossible for a shape to both be a circle, and have corners. The core concept of being a circle makes it impossible for a shape to both be a circle and have corners.

Thus you *can* prove a negative.

Now, on to the next bit. Proving the nonexistance of god. For this argument I will focus on the christian definition of god, for there are many gods & they all claim to have different characteristics.

The christian god is claimed to be omnipotent. eg: he can do anything anywhere, create anything etc

If god is omnipotent then he should be able to create a rock that is so heavy that noone can lift it, not even himself. If he created the entire universe, it should be a simple matter to create such a rock.

However, if god did create such a rock, then THERE would be something he could not do (lift the rock) therefore he is not omnipotent.

'But god can do anything' you might say 'god could lift any rock, it is impossible for a rock to exist which is so heavy that god could not lift it!'

Well then THERE is something god could not do (create such a rock) and there again he is not omnipotent.

Either way, it is impossible for ANY being to be omnipotent, the concept is self-contradictory and impossible, just like the circle with corners. If god is not omnipotent then why worship him?

God does not exist, no amount of wishful thinking will ever change that simple fact.
 
2006-06-11 04:00:25 PM  
chewd

Um...no. Two major problems with your argument:

1) false assumption of the postulates
2) arguing a concept, not a reality (you're arguing that something which by defintion cannot be done cannot be done)

And, just for the heck of it:

3) every 3 year old who has ever lived asked that exact same question, yet they eventually matured enough in their thinking to realize their error
 
2006-06-11 04:03:03 PM  
chewd

An omnipotent, omniscient being is not self-contradictory.

However, non-living material becoming alive is. So is a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient being existing without being created.

And, for the record, if you're an atheist, you'd better not ever talk about morality.
 
2006-06-11 07:12:51 PM  
suicidebooth... tell your friend to keep the faith ;) I've been a Pagan for 44 years and love to hear about others who are as committed to ending the crap we get.

Yes, we have had trouble with things like you mention. But, thanks to some very hard-working, stubborn Pagans, we have 501 status and are in both the DOD and DOC Chaplaincy handbooks. We're getting there.....Woot!
 
2006-06-11 10:20:02 PM  
friendly_neighborhood_misanthrope: An omnipotent, omniscient being is not self-contradictory.

However, non-living material becoming alive is. So is a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient being existing without being created.

And, for the record, if you're an atheist, you'd better not ever talk about morality.


I'll have to give you some credit for bothering to have thought about this airy stuff at all, but really you're going to have to tighten this act up quite a bit if you ever expect us atheists to jump all doggy-like through these argumentative hoops you're waving around before us.

I pass on the first para. The second, if by "created" you mean "created by a magical bearded deity", and I suspect that is what you mean,, is extraordinarily silly, both sentences. I mean silly like "the sun is too not bright" silly.

As far as the third, what's this "better not" crap, if I do talk about morality what are you gonna do, kick my ass? Hah, bring it on, tough guy!! I'll kick your ass instead, huh huh yeah that's what I'll do!!!1! No, seriously, that link of yours, man was it Humpty Dumpty dumb. I quote:

...If morality is relative, it's not really morality. It's simply a personal choice on how to live. If morality is subjective, then it's simply a set of social agreements. Neither of these, of course, is actual morality...

Oh, of course! Of course not! If you insist on using the word "morality" to mean "edicts handed down to Old Testament prophets by Jehovah," then I guess morality is inseparable from religion, Q.E.D. And if I define "whore" to mean "nice lady who cooks delicious home-made apple pies," and I stamp and pout whenever you do not agree with my wild 'n' wacky definition style, then you can really have no sound counter-argument to my definitive assertion "Yo mama is a whore." Unless of course you decline to give credence to my stamping and pouting.
 
2006-06-12 12:10:51 AM  
This thread is...

img223.imageshack.us

Darksided!!!!!!
 
2006-06-12 01:09:42 AM  
I feel no need to defend my belief in God to anyone who demands proof. To paraphrase Kierkegaard, I would no more try to prove the existence of my God than I would try and rationally defend my love for my wife. To do so would reveal a deep insincerity. Besides, I feel secure that as Thomas was given 'the ocular proof,' so too will everyone else in due time.

As a sidenote, though I consider myself to be a fairly progressive individual, I do think that the generally liberal Protestant response to place Christianity as "just another equally valid religion alongside others, because we're all human and nobody can really know the truth" is antithetical to the spirit and significance of Christianity.

"And I saw that everything was vanity and a chasing after wind."
 
2006-06-12 03:19:50 PM  
friendly_neighborhood_misanthrope

And, for the record, if you're an atheist, you'd better not ever talk about morality.


I am an agnostic atheist- does that count? I don't believe in god and I have morals. Suck it.
 
Displayed 35 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report