Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity

jjwars1: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity

Plus incest!

And let's not forget all the rapes. It seems God(TM) really likes seeing people get raped.

EfiniX: Came for the Caucasian comment. Not disappointed. I wonder how the typical Breitbart reader would respond to a big-nosed, dark-skinned Jesus?

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/life-of-brian/scene-03 .h tml

On the next exciting episode of The Bible: The Begats

rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

finally some good old sex and violence in the movies

rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

A great many religious people respect the views of many other beliefs, including atheism.  Act respectful of others, and they may return the courtesy.  Those that don't return the courtesy are likely narrow-minded zealots with a lot of insecurities who need to feel validated by mocking and demeaning people who don't think like they do.

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

whoever said they wanted respect? their belief is the right one!

kid_icarus: Nabb1: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

A great many religious people respect the views of many other beliefs, including atheism.  Act respectful of others, and they may return the courtesy.  Those that don't return the courtesy are likely narrow-minded zealots with a lot of insecurities who need to feel validated by mocking and demeaning people who don't think like they do.

Ah, I see you've visited us here in the South.

I've lived in the South all my life.  But I grew up Catholic.  In South Carolina.

gshepnyc: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.

You have to be fairly narrow-minded to think that scientific understanding and faith are mutually exclusive in all situations.  There are many people of science who embrace faith and vice versa.

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

I didn't include the skywizard comment in the headline because I'm an atheist. I included it because of this: "debut on The History Channel March 3"

I mean, I could have used something else instead. Maybe something about Jewish pawnbrokers, or how dangerous it was at the time to fish on the Sea of Galilee, or perhaps worked in something about the trials of the loggers whose timber ends up in Jesus's woodshop, but to copy NowhereMon, I decided to go with this:

Nabb1: gshepnyc: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.

You have to be fairly narrow-minded to think that scientific understanding and faith are mutually exclusive in all situations.  There are many people of science who embrace faith and vice versa.

Even completely ignoring the debate about whether God exists or not, if you can read the Bible and come away with the conclusion that the God described therein is worthy of anything more than our disgust and revulsion, then you're seriously lacking in critical thinking abilities

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Nabb1: gshepnyc: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.

You have to be fairly narrow-minded to think that scientific understanding and faith are mutually exclusive in all situations.  There are many people of science who embrace faith and vice versa.

Even completely ignoring the debate about whether God exists or not, if you can read the Bible and come away with the conclusion that the God described therein is worthy of anything more than our disgust and revulsion, then you're seriously lacking in critical thinking abilities

Well, don't we seem rather sure of ourselves?  Which version of the Bible, as in which translation?  There are a myriad of translations out there.  The Bible was written by human beings, trying to sort out their understanding of God.  I suppose if you take a certain version and read and interpret everything literally, you might develop a rigid opinion, but then that's also what leads to fundamentalism.

Nabb1: Well, don't we seem rather sure of ourselves?  Which version of the Bible, as in which translation?  There are a myriad of translations out there.  The Bible was written by human beings, trying to sort out their understanding of God.  I suppose if you take a certain version and read and interpret everything literally, you might develop a rigid opinion, but then that's also what leads to fundamentalism.


Can you find me a version of the Bible in which God doesn't regularly command his followers to kill thousands of people? Or one which doesn't condone slavery? One in which he doesn't outright state that he's a jealous God?

Maybe you can find one in which he never decided to kill virtually everything that lived on the planet because he was disappointed with how his creations turned out?

It really doesn't matter which version you pick, the God they describe is petty, vengeful, and downright repulsive.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Nabb1: Well, don't we seem rather sure of ourselves?  Which version of the Bible, as in which translation?  There are a myriad of translations out there.  The Bible was written by human beings, trying to sort out their understanding of God.  I suppose if you take a certain version and read and interpret everything literally, you might develop a rigid opinion, but then that's also what leads to fundamentalism.


Can you find me a version of the Bible in which God doesn't regularly command his followers to kill thousands of people? Or one which doesn't condone slavery? One in which he doesn't outright state that he's a jealous God?

Maybe you can find one in which he never decided to kill virtually everything that lived on the planet because he was disappointed with how his creations turned out?

It really doesn't matter which version you pick, the God they describe is petty, vengeful, and downright repulsive.

How do you know all of those stories are literal accounts of factual occurrences?  How do you know many of may very well be parables and allegory?  How do you know some of what was written was merely the writer's attempt to rationalize preconceived notions about the world as opposed to an understanding of the nature of God?  Human understanding evolves and changes, and no one is perfect.  Theology is as much philosophy as anything else.  If you aren't going to look deeper into scripture than what is on the fact of the literal text, you aren't approaching it in a very thoughtful manner, IMO.  And maybe you aren't interested enough to try it, and that's fine, but don't assume your sweeping generalizations are anything more than reactionary as opposed to the product of any real intellectual work.