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.

(DW-World)   Atheists make children's book teaching acceptance of all beliefs and sharing. Nah, just kidding, it is portrays all religions as evil and bloodthirsty complete with a crazed Jew   (dw-world.de) divider line 943
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

16944 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2008 at 10:59 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



943 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-03 12:51:07 AM
Obscure: jram: can we please stop this? no matter how many you throw out there religion still wins the death toll count. in fact grab a globe point at the mid east and tell me how many have died and are dying over religion? if you want to split hairs we can go all night but i promise you, you will lose.

Actually, I think lispin_liberal makes a pretty strong case, and I doubt you're going to find a counter example. Stalin's 12 million and Pol Pot's 6 million adds up to 18 million deaths in just the 20th century (not including Mao's death toll).

If we consider the Christian Era of Europe to end around the 18th century (with the Enlightenment), and consider that the entire population of the world was only 300 million to 600 million... well, it starts to seem doubtful that as many as 18 million people were killed by the Church over the entire course of its history.

But hey, if you have evidence to contrary, please speak up. I mean, this thread is all about evidence.


wow, that turd took a bit to push out. my friend, all religions combined have killed more people than communisum. more people die in the name of god. defend your fellow fundys all you want.
 
2008-02-03 12:51:18 AM
jpbreon: I knew this thread had potential, but we really need the arrival of czarangelus.

That's what I was thinking. This was far too sane of a religion thread.

/seriously, this is a relatively tame thread
 
2008-02-03 12:53:08 AM
Lispin'Liberal: Sabyen91

Because it is more accurate to say it was about culture and nationalism. Nazism is not inherently Christian. The communists didn't need to use atheism "as an excuse" because removing Christianity from society cut the ethical legs out from under it. For example, the idea that human life is in any way special or sacred, or that humans have a "right to life" was not prevalent in Europe before Christianity.


Hey, I agree, I think Hitler used Christianity as a tool to control the masses. Not Christianity's fault but without it...he would have had one fewer weapon. Now, the Inquisition, that is all on religion.
 
2008-02-03 12:53:47 AM
Obscure: jram: can we please stop this? no matter how many you throw out there religion still wins the death toll count. in fact grab a globe point at the mid east and tell me how many have died and are dying over religion? if you want to split hairs we can go all night but i promise you, you will lose.

Actually, I think lispin_liberal makes a pretty strong case, and I doubt you're going to find a counter example. Stalin's 12 million and Pol Pot's 6 million adds up to 18 million deaths in just the 20th century (not including Mao's death toll).

If we consider the Christian Era of Europe to end around the 18th century (with the Enlightenment), and consider that the entire population of the world was only 300 million to 600 million... well, it starts to seem doubtful that as many as 18 million people were killed by the Church over the entire course of its history.

But hey, if you have evidence to contrary, please speak up. I mean, this thread is all about evidence.


Oh please. This is a massive straw man. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were not atheists simply because they didn't believe in God. They were atheists because the church was a rival for power, and atheism gave them an excuse to get rid of it.

Just because some power hungry dictators espoused atheism as a position to justify persecuting a perceived rival for power a.k.a religion, does not make all atheists power hungry dictators.

On the other hand, religious organizations on many occasions have made persecution, torture, murder and theft part of the official doctrine of the faith, so long as these were levied on those declared heretics, unbelievers, witches, etc.
 
2008-02-03 12:54:16 AM
Doggie McNugget:
That's what I was thinking. This was far too sane of a religion thread.

/seriously, this is a relatively tame thread


We could just give ourselves a little self-congratulations. This thread even started with a Bevets sighting but we overcome.
 
2008-02-03 12:54:25 AM
 
2008-02-03 12:54:34 AM
mamoru: Sabyen91: Yeah, mamoru, I guess I switched gears in the middle of the sentence.

May Grammaticus Prime, the God of Grammar Nazis, have mercy on your soul. And, yes, he DOES exist. ;p


He is a strict but fair God. He will forgive my heinous sin...sooner or later.
 
2008-02-03 12:54:56 AM
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
 
2008-02-03 12:55:49 AM
Looks like... ze Germans... are at it again.

www.sciencefriction.net

Benjamin Jefferson, or Thomas Paine Jackson, or somebody once said, "I may think you're a poopoohead, but I'll kick somebody in the nnnnnuts if they infringe on your constitutional right to show how much of a poopoohead you are."

Undoubtedly, the book's an inflammatory piece of poop-- the hard-print equivalent of trolling. And only a momo would actually believe that this is an actual children's book; it's clearly a satirical vehicle.

So, maybe it'll serve its purpose and rattle the heads of a couple of the self-righteous fundamentalists of a few major religions... but, I doubt it. More likely, it will cause a few more self-detonations in public. And more snarkers who sit back in their ez-chairs and chuckle ('heheh, heheh, religion's dumb'). Good stuff.

Once more, poop. That is all.
 
2008-02-03 12:56:05 AM
KiltedBastich: Obscure: jram: can we please stop this? no matter how many you throw out there religion still wins the death toll count. in fact grab a globe point at the mid east and tell me how many have died and are dying over religion? if you want to split hairs we can go all night but i promise you, you will lose.

Actually, I think lispin_liberal makes a pretty strong case, and I doubt you're going to find a counter example. Stalin's 12 million and Pol Pot's 6 million adds up to 18 million deaths in just the 20th century (not including Mao's death toll).

If we consider the Christian Era of Europe to end around the 18th century (with the Enlightenment), and consider that the entire population of the world was only 300 million to 600 million... well, it starts to seem doubtful that as many as 18 million people were killed by the Church over the entire course of its history.

But hey, if you have evidence to contrary, please speak up. I mean, this thread is all about evidence.

Oh please. This is a massive straw man. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were not atheists simply because they didn't believe in God. They were atheists because the church was a rival for power, and atheism gave them an excuse to get rid of it.

Just because some power hungry dictators espoused atheism as a position to justify persecuting a perceived rival for power a.k.a religion, does not make all atheists power hungry dictators.

On the other hand, religious organizations on many occasions have made persecution, torture, murder and theft part of the official doctrine of the faith, so long as these were levied on those declared heretics, unbelievers, witches, etc.


THIS.
 
2008-02-03 12:56:23 AM
Doggie McNugget

/seriously, this is a relatively tame thread

I noticed that...this is one of the weakest flame wars i've ever seen. This thread needs more Czarangelous
 
2008-02-03 12:56:25 AM
jpbreon:

I knew this thread had potential, but we really need the arrival of czarangelus.

I am shocked, as well, that Czar hasn't surfaced yet..
 
2008-02-03 12:57:07 AM
jram: Lispin'Liberal: jram

Hitler's religious beliefs are disputed by both sides, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say Hitler was a devout Catholic. He killed about 8 million in the holocaust.

Now I get to throw in Khrushchev, Mao, and Pol Pot. Atheist death tolls are well into the hundreds of millions.

can we please stop this? no matter how many you throw out there religion still wins the death toll count. in fact grab a globe point at the mid east and tell me how many have died and are dying over religion? if you want to split hairs we can go all night but i promise you, you will lose.


And Khrushchev, Mao and Pol Pot did not murder in the name of religion, nor Atheism like Hitler and the rest of your buddies did.
 
2008-02-03 12:57:35 AM
Sabyen91:
Hey, I agree, I think Hitler used Christianity as a tool to control the masses. Not Christianity's fault but without it...he would have had one fewer weapon. Now, the Inquisition, that is all on religion.


Actually, the Vatican's behavior during World War 2 was downright despicable. The Church had a duty and obligation to help those in need, even Jews. The didn't do anything out of fear of reprisal from Adolf and the boys. I can't imagine how Jesus thought of such cowardly behavior.
 
2008-02-03 12:57:57 AM
Dead_Pool_82: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Unicorns and such.
 
2008-02-03 12:58:12 AM
Lispin'Liberal: Doggie McNugget

/seriously, this is a relatively tame thread

I noticed that...this is one of the weakest flame wars i've ever seen. This thread needs more Czarangelous


I don't think it's gonna happen. I've been sitting here watching it, and I'm just like uh. What's really to say?
 
2008-02-03 12:58:45 AM
Obscure

My little friend...moronically...idiotic...

So you choose to believe that the original works of Calculus were obliterated by monks accidentally because paper was expensive, and this shows that religion is not suppressive of information, science, or education. (my original assertion)

Well, let me just !
 
2008-02-03 12:58:46 AM
Antimatter: Proving god's existence would be as easy as evidence of an event, object, or force that cannot have occurred by any natural means.

what gets tricky is the Deist belief that Go's work is in stuff like physics, chemistry, etc. Thats harder to prove, as you'd need evidence of god compiling the code, or such.

It's kinda like looking at uncommented code and trying to describe the programmer. A noble pursuit, but a difficult one.


Well, the problem is, in a real universe, if you can see it and detect it, then it's natural, and inevitably there was a mechanism that underlies it. The fact that we might not be able to tell what that mechanism is does not mean there isn't one. In fact, physics and cosmology are full of freaky-weird things that would seem to be supernatural - except they aren't, they are just evidence of the limits of our current understanding.

Once again, the universe is not in any way obligated to conform itself to our expectations. If there is a conflict between universal reality and the expectations derived from human ideas, the universe wins, every time.
 
2008-02-03 12:59:03 AM
Bibles, often having soft pages, make for good toilet paper when one does not really want to run out to the store in the middle of the night just because one has a bad case of the whiskey shiats.

Yes, this information comes from personal experience. There are a lot of missionaries and other zealots where I live, so I have to do something with the books they foist on me.

Have a great Sunday! :D
 
2008-02-03 12:59:19 AM
jpbreon: Sabyen91:
Hey, I agree, I think Hitler used Christianity as a tool to control the masses. Not Christianity's fault but without it...he would have had one fewer weapon. Now, the Inquisition, that is all on religion.

Actually, the Vatican's behavior during World War 2 was downright despicable. The Church had a duty and obligation to help those in need, even Jews. The didn't do anything out of fear of reprisal from Adolf and the boys. I can't imagine how Jesus thought of such cowardly behavior.


he chalked it up to lack of faith?
 
2008-02-03 12:59:37 AM
Russad: fanbladesaresharp: This is like farking work. We have Caturday thread and Jebus Day thread. Like farking clockwork. And someone is greenlighting it. Two things that seem to piss off Farkers the most: Cats and Religion.

Don't even get me farking started on religious cats...


See? that's just it. One day it's cats, then Jesus. Make up your farking mind people. Cats have "servants" then it's "well I have to atone today for some shiat, so here I go..." Then it's Linux ducks versus the Microsoft furbies, and here we go.

I wonder what you guys would taste like in a blended smoothie.
 
2008-02-03 12:59:42 AM
All religions are evil, business ventures that prey on dumb people for money and political power. Truth hurts, costs market share. Too bad.
 
2008-02-03 12:59:56 AM
Sabyen91: Lispin, what does the rise of Stalin have to do with atheism? Communism is a political-economic belief. Not a religious belief. Not even Stalin said; Kill all the believers because their religion is evil!!! Atheism was not a cause of Stalin, it was his personal belief.

That is pretty spot on. Soviet atheism and scientific atheism are two different things.

Sovite atheism was about a personality cult surrounding Lenin, Stalin etc. for example. It was also about an absolute belief in a non scientific idea.

Scientific atheism is about a legitimate search for the truth. Perhaps search isn't a good word, because the truth has already been determinied with what appears to be great accuracy.
 
2008-02-03 01:00:36 AM
jpbreon: sarcastrophe: The problem with this whole argument is simple. First, atheism is a belief that there is no God while theism is a belief there is a god. Both are beliefs. Athiests would probably happily let you on your merry way if you stopped shouting at the top of your lungs that there is a god, stop trying to sneak your god into our schools and culture, and stop trying to refute known scientific evidence that just happens to contradict your little holy book.

No! It is not.

Atheism is not a belief. To have a belief means that you considered a certain question or issue. You ask me if I like Pepsi, I can do three things. I can say 'yes', I can say 'no', or I could say I never tried them and have no interest in doing so.

Lack of an answer is not the same as giving a negative answer.


Except with your third choice you're talking more about agnosticism. "I don't know if God exists" is agnosticism. Atheism is "No, God does not exist." And while I agree that with most atheists atheism is not a religion, saying there is any real difference in "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist" is really splitting hairs.
 
2008-02-03 01:00:54 AM
jpbreon: Sabyen91:
Hey, I agree, I think Hitler used Christianity as a tool to control the masses. Not Christianity's fault but without it...he would have had one fewer weapon. Now, the Inquisition, that is all on religion.

Actually, the Vatican's behavior during World War 2 was downright despicable. The Church had a duty and obligation to help those in need, even Jews. The didn't do anything out of fear of reprisal from Adolf and the boys. I can't imagine how Jesus thought of such cowardly behavior.


And they just installed a Hitler Youth. Maybe Benedict did not have an affinity for the Nazis and was an unwilling recruit but jeez, is this a slap in the face to Jews after John Paul, or what?
 
2008-02-03 01:02:45 AM
Maybe jpbreon & Doggie McNugget are right...As so many of y'all have said before, this thread is kind of lame. Especially for a Saturday Night, IMO!!
 
2008-02-03 01:03:10 AM
KiltedBastich: For philosophical reasons, you are correct. However, for pragmatic and logical ones, this is not correct. If a concept has no explanatory value in modeling the functioning of a system, it is not included in the model.

Ok, but I'm not sure what model we're discussing here. If, for example, we're discussing the nature of electricity, or other physical phenomena, I would agree that the models describing these have been greatly improved by the removal of supernatural entities from the description. If we're discussing the topic of the Meaning of Life, we are probably frequently going to find the concept of God a handy tool in one way or another.

No one can say, "God doesn't exist," and prove it. Can't be done.

Agreed.

They can however say, "We will choose to assume God doesn't exist, and operate on that assumption, until such time as real evidence otherwise is forthcoming."

Also agreed. This is what is sometimes called "bracketing," as in the idea can simply be bracketed and put aside. However, you could also formulate this in the opposite fashion, which is what people of faith do -- "We will choose to assume that God is real until such evidence is forthcoming that demonstrates otherwise." Both are equally logically valid. (And yes, it could be Pink Unicorns as well.)

This can be done, has been done, and in fact is absolutely necessary for the functioning of reasoned investigation.

Again, reasoned investigation of *what*? I fail to understand why it's necessary to not believe in God (or to believe in God) to exercise one's reason. There are plenty of examples of both believers and non-believers who have demonstrated exemplary powers of reason.

Ignoring that because it violates your personal preferences is simply irresponsible. The universe does not care whether you approve or disapprove of it's mechanisms. You will be subject to them either way. So you can either choose to live by a system that deliberately seeks to obfuscate the way the universe works for its own purposes, at your peril, or you can try to actually seek to investigate what's out there, accepting that such a project is essentially infinite and ongoing.

Well, you lost me here. First, I'm not quite sure if the "you" in the statement above is directed at me personally, or if it's just a general "you". Second, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I think you are trying to tell me that if I pray for God to stop gravity before jumping off a building, I'll still hit the pavement. You've got no argument there, if that's the case. But if that's the argument you're making, I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I thought we were bringing this to a more interesting level than that.
 
2008-02-03 01:03:55 AM
Obscure: jram: can we please stop this? no matter how many you throw out there religion still wins the death toll count. in fact grab a globe point at the mid east and tell me how many have died and are dying over religion? if you want to split hairs we can go all night but i promise you, you will lose.

Actually, I think lispin_liberal makes a pretty strong case, and I doubt you're going to find a counter example. Stalin's 12 million and Pol Pot's 6 million adds up to 18 million deaths in just the 20th century (not including Mao's death toll).

If we consider the Christian Era of Europe to end around the 18th century (with the Enlightenment), and consider that the entire population of the world was only 300 million to 600 million... well, it starts to seem doubtful that as many as 18 million people were killed by the Church over the entire course of its history.

But hey, if you have evidence to contrary, please speak up. I mean, this thread is all about evidence.


OK I will. Limpin Liberal keeps naming people who murdered in the name of COMMUNISM, not ATHEISM. Others have been able to name people who murdered in the name of RELIGION quite easily. Still waiting to see evidence of any Atheist holocausts.
 
2008-02-03 01:04:01 AM
Great Janitor: I was wondering what I was going to do tonight. Girlfriend is sick, so there goes sex. Porn and a religion flamewar, now I just need to get that beer out of the fridge.

That is exactly what I'm doing. Except that my girlfriend isn't sick. Actually I don't even have a girlfriend. I just like watching lots of porn while reading fark which would account for, more or less, 2/3's of fark.
 
2008-02-03 01:04:09 AM
jram:
he chalked it up to lack of faith?


I doubt it. There was, and still is, a lot of suspicion surrounding the Vatican and the Germans during that time period.

Antimatter

Deists don't try to tie in God with specific interests of any science. We are content to marvel at how unique and exciting things are - for example - the eye. Something so unique and powerful carries around a small piece of God, even if he does not interfere with the mortal plane, so to speak.
 
2008-02-03 01:04:12 AM
Mr Logo: Sabyen91: Lispin, what does the rise of Stalin have to do with atheism? Communism is a political-economic belief. Not a religious belief. Not even Stalin said; Kill all the believers because their religion is evil!!! Atheism was not a cause of Stalin, it was his personal belief.

That is pretty spot on. Soviet atheism and scientific atheism are two different things.

Sovite atheism was about a personality cult surrounding Lenin, Stalin etc. for example. It was also about an absolute belief in a non scientific idea.

Scientific atheism is about a legitimate search for the truth. Perhaps search isn't a good word, because the truth has already been determinied with what appears to be great accuracy.


AUGH! Ok, scientific truth, as it were, does not exist. The universe is infinite, we are not. If you get into the philosophy of science, you learn that the basic methodological assumption of science is that there is always more to learn, because everything we know is based on incomplete evidence. There are no final truths, because it is not possible for finite human senses and faculties to encompass everything there is to know in an infinite universe.
 
2008-02-03 01:04:12 AM
Plus, Benedict is a prick, anyway. Catholics really know how to recruit :)
 
2008-02-03 01:04:14 AM
voyvf: Bibles, often having soft pages, make for good toilet paper when one does not really want to run out to the store in the middle of the night just because one has a bad case of the whiskey shiats.

Yes, this information comes from personal experience. There are a lot of missionaries and other zealots where I live, so I have to do something with the books they foist on me.

Have a great Sunday! :D


That's really a piss poor troll. Why don't you go tell all African American guys that they're worthless whitey hatemongers while you're at it Kreskin?

Answer: You really aren't going to get far on Fark with that.
 
2008-02-03 01:04:16 AM
FTFA: "I think that God doesn't even exist," the hedgehog says at the end of the book. "And if He does, than he definitely doesn't live in [a synagogue, cathedral or mosque]."

Wow. If only this meant that multiple Gods and Goddesses didn't exist that would be meaningful. Or if any religious actually believed that some singular monotheistic power actually resided in a mosque, synagogue or church.
 
2008-02-03 01:04:39 AM
KiltedBastich: Antimatter: Proving god's existence would be as easy as evidence of an event, object, or force that cannot have occurred by any natural means.

what gets tricky is the Deist belief that Go's work is in stuff like physics, chemistry, etc. Thats harder to prove, as you'd need evidence of god compiling the code, or such.

It's kinda like looking at uncommented code and trying to describe the programmer. A noble pursuit, but a difficult one.

Well, the problem is, in a real universe, if you can see it and detect it, then it's natural, and inevitably there was a mechanism that underlies it. The fact that we might not be able to tell what that mechanism is does not mean there isn't one. In fact, physics and cosmology are full of freaky-weird things that would seem to be supernatural - except they aren't, they are just evidence of the limits of our current understanding.

Once again, the universe is not in any way obligated to conform itself to our expectations. If there is a conflict between universal reality and the expectations derived from human ideas, the universe wins, every time.


Right, but all you'd have to do to prove the supernatural is find something that can't be explained by a natural process.

Thats very difficult to do, but thats why miracles are miracles: they aren't natural, but the acts of a god.

Unless your of the belief that God's themselves are some sort of natural being, in which case the proof is harder to find.
 
2008-02-03 01:06:03 AM
fanbladesaresharp: Constance Velocity: sarcastrophe:

Lack of belief = belief

Hardly.

It may seem like that to you if you are a person who has to know the answer to everything and has to have an opinion on everything. But it is very possible to not have an opinion, not want to know everything and not have a belief.

Also known as: A farking rock where absolutely nothing happens. Evar. That's boring. Stop wasting the CO2 here and go to bed.


WHAT????
 
2008-02-03 01:06:55 AM
Klugman will smite you all.
 
2008-02-03 01:07:14 AM
jram: wow, that turd took a bit to push out. my friend, all religions combined have killed more people than communisum. more people die in the name of god. defend your fellow fundys all you want.

I'm getting a big kick out of the fact that you assume I'm a fundy, or even religious at all. (On the other hand, I'm assuming you're a complete idiot, but that's probably unfair. You're probably quite clever at something or other, I'm sure.)

But anyway, I'm sorry, you have never once even attempted to back up your assertion with any facts whatsoever, other than a lame reference to the Inquisition.
 
2008-02-03 01:07:20 AM
So, did anyone find out what was going on earlier? I guess I'll go and figure it out.
 
2008-02-03 01:07:21 AM
KiltedBastich: Mr Logo: Sabyen91: Lispin, what does the rise of Stalin have to do with atheism? Communism is a political-economic belief. Not a religious belief. Not even Stalin said; Kill all the believers because their religion is evil!!! Atheism was not a cause of Stalin, it was his personal belief.

That is pretty spot on. Soviet atheism and scientific atheism are two different things.

Sovite atheism was about a personality cult surrounding Lenin, Stalin etc. for example. It was also about an absolute belief in a non scientific idea.

Scientific atheism is about a legitimate search for the truth. Perhaps search isn't a good word, because the truth has already been determinied with what appears to be great accuracy.

AUGH! Ok, scientific truth, as it were, does not exist. The universe is infinite, we are not. If you get into the philosophy of science, you learn that the basic methodological assumption of science is that there is always more to learn, because everything we know is based on incomplete evidence. There are no final truths, because it is not possible for finite human senses and faculties to encompass everything there is to know in an infinite universe.


I don't see how you are contradicting the post of the one you are responding to. It is the search for scientific truth. "The search", I believe, being the operative words.
 
2008-02-03 01:07:49 AM
Bill_Wick's_Friend

Ba'al? Thanks, that was oh so funny.

/scrolled all the way down to the bottom just to post that
//doesn't need a religion to tell me the universe is beautiful
 
2008-02-03 01:07:50 AM
Sabyen91:
And they just installed a Hitler Youth. Maybe Benedict did not have an affinity for the Nazis and was an unwilling recruit but jeez, is this a slap in the face to Jews after John Paul, or what?


It may just be callousness for the Church at this point in time, but the Church's inability to support followers during the war was a huge error.

fatbasturd

Yes, that's true. Perhaps I should have said something more along the line of "Pepsi sounds terrible, I will never touch it."
 
2008-02-03 01:07:52 AM
jpbreon: This argument is even funnier than others before.

Choice A: God is an all-knowing and all-powerful deity. He offers to bring your soul to heaven should you have faith in him. Lack of faith results in a punishment, being cast into a lake of fire.

Choice B: Atheism. There is no God, and each man must learn to work with other men to achieve goals. No reward or punishment.

People will then tell you to "hedge" your bet by being a Christian. If you are right then you go to heaven, and if you are wrong no harm is done to you.


Thoughts? Keep in mind this is not actually my position, but rather a talking point.


Wouldn't God prefer an honest non-believer than a dishonest "believer" who is only pious in hope of reward and avoidance of pain?

The atheist who does good works has nothing to gain or lose in an "eternal" sense. The person who bases his actions on reward and punishment, however, is doing so purely in the pursuit of self-interest.

It's why I never "bought" Pascal's Wager. How shallow.
 
2008-02-03 01:07:52 AM
You are all wrong.

now fight for my amusement
dance puppets - dance
 
2008-02-03 01:08:44 AM
jpbreon

Actually, the Vatican's behavior during World War 2 was downright despicable. The Church had a duty and obligation to help those in need, even Jews.

True...but pointing out the cowardice, manipulation, and corruption of the Catholic Church (which there is tons of proof for) does not void the entire Christian philosophy. I think the Catholic Church has been quite destructive throughout history. They got very greedy soon after their formation and turned into something that does not reflect much of any of Jesus' philosophy.
 
2008-02-03 01:09:14 AM
Obscure: jram: wow, that turd took a bit to push out. my friend, all religions combined have killed more people than communisum. more people die in the name of god. defend your fellow fundys all you want.

I'm getting a big kick out of the fact that you assume I'm a fundy, or even religious at all. (On the other hand, I'm assuming you're a complete idiot, but that's probably unfair. You're probably quite clever at something or other, I'm sure.)

But anyway, I'm sorry, you have never once even attempted to back up your assertion with any facts whatsoever, other than a lame reference to the Inquisition.


Well, considering you slander atheism and call the reference to the Inquisition lame I would have NO clue why he would think you are a fundy.
 
2008-02-03 01:10:33 AM
Books are the tinfoil my hat wears to keep the atheists out of my beliefs!

/I think I'm doing it wrong ...
 
2008-02-03 01:10:56 AM
WFern:
Wouldn't God prefer an honest non-believer than a dishonest "believer" who is only pious in hope of reward and avoidance of pain?

The atheist who does good works has nothing to gain or lose in an "eternal" sense. The person who bases his actions on reward and punishment, however, is doing so purely in the pursuit of self-interest.

It's why I never "bought" Pascal's Wager. How shallow.


I don't think it could have been answered in a better way. However, if God is as forgiving as he is made out to be, then you could simply repent on your death bed. I imagine lots in prison go this route.
 
2008-02-03 01:11:53 AM
jpbreon: Doggie McNugget:
That's what I was thinking. This was far too sane of a religion thread.

/seriously, this is a relatively tame thread

We could just give ourselves a little self-congratulations. This thread even started with a Bevets sighting but we overcome.


Truth be told, I'm a Jew who observes kashrut and shabbat, etc. fully. I just don't really care if someone is atheist or not and finds most religion threads on fark to be dull and sophomoric, so I'm not really getting a kick out of these replies.

/get off my eruv
 
2008-02-03 01:12:15 AM
jram: ...all religions combined have killed more people than communisum. more people die in the name of god. defend your fellow fundys all you want.

Atheist Communist regimes killed over 139 million people. 62 million were murdered by Atheist USSR. 77 million were murdered by Atheist Red China. Those are hard numbers to beat.
 
Displayed 50 of 943 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report