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.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   With two historically revisionist novels about the killings of John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln under his belt, Bill O'Reilly is now writing a book entitled "Killing Jesus"   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 248
    More: Stupid, Bill O'Reilly, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, William Morris Endeavor, Jesus of Nazareth  
•       •       •

3828 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2013 at 11:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-21 09:43:09 AM
So I'm betting that in his version, the Jews didn't do it? The 30 pieces of silver was just a metaphor, and in fact it was proto-Muslims who reached back into the past, thanks to Obama's Time Machine, disguised themselves, and tried to end the reign of the King of Kings, only to fail to realize that their assassination attempt would be foiled by Christ's resurrection, and making Jesus more powerful than they could ever imagine?

I'm just guessing.
 
2013-02-21 09:46:45 AM
Can you really call it revisionist if it never happened in the first place?
 
2013-02-21 10:08:21 AM
i70.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-21 10:11:35 AM
Dear Bill,

Every time you open your mouth another part of me dies.

Love,
Jesus
 
2013-02-21 10:33:51 AM
I read that as "Killing for Jesus" at first.  Because Circle Jerks, that's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L85MNzeAQn8
 
2013-02-21 10:34:31 AM
His derp has finally gone full circle.
 
2013-02-21 10:41:23 AM
i1282.photobucket.com

The 'H' is silent.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 10:57:24 AM
But he doesn't STAY dead.

scienceblogs.com
 
2013-02-21 11:11:47 AM
Hasn't this already been done? In musical, comedy and S&M form?


userserve-ak.last.fm

www.thefilmpilgrim.com
bible.org
 
2013-02-21 11:15:52 AM
Obama did it.

Am I doing it right?
 
2013-02-21 11:16:19 AM
If you give them enough rope, eventually all derpsters auto-erotically asphyxiate themselves.
 
2013-02-21 11:16:35 AM
What the f-word is wrong with this guy? I personally view his obsession with assassinations as a subliminal attempt to get one of his crazy followers to shoot Fartbongo.
 
2013-02-21 11:16:39 AM

Nabb1: I read that as "Killing for Jesus" at first.  Because Circle Jerks, that's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L85MNzeAQn8


i2.cdn.turner.com
It's not the first, and hardly the worst, instance a person paying attention to Billo was led to killing.
 
2013-02-21 11:17:04 AM
God, somebody please go kill Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
 
2013-02-21 11:17:43 AM
Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!"
He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you.
Let's say there's a sick person over here, and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could...in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."
No answer.
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
No answer.
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.
"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From...God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns, smirking, to the student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Yes."
"Who created evil?"
No answer.
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality?
Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
No answer.
The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO
CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climb into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
No answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to enc
ompass the wickedness of the world.
"All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"
No answer.
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause.
"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"
No answer.
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus... In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
No answer.
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!"
The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
The student doesn't answer.
"Sit down, please."
The Christian sits...Defeated.
Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.
The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 -You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it." Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"
"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..."
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.
"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains "That for example there is life and then here's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it." The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"
"Of course there is, now look..."
"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"
The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.
The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accoplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies.
"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.
"Professor. Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"
"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
"I believe in what is - that's science!"
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face spits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"
The professor wisely keeps silent.
The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter.
The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"
No one appears to have done so.
The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoeer. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."
The class is in chaos.
The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.
 
2013-02-21 11:19:46 AM
I'd be happy if the first few pages are an acknowledgement that Christ wasn't the white guy we tend to see in all the Renaissance+ artwork.  A guy like that would tend to stand out in historical writings and the dude doesn't muster a peep.
 
2013-02-21 11:20:20 AM
How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture.
 
2013-02-21 11:20:53 AM

beantowndog: Can you really call it revisionist if it never happened in the first place?


Don't know much about religion and its history, but don't most scholars accept that he lived and was killed? Regardless of any religion aspects? Seems I was taught that he existed, whether you believe the backstory or not.

/went to a public school, could be 100% wrong
 
2013-02-21 11:21:56 AM

Maus III: Is God to blame...



I'm sure I've seen that before, but usually it's in an e-mail from my mother with FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: GOD LOVES YOU!!!!! surrounding it.
 
2013-02-21 11:23:15 AM
God's omnipotent

/you can't explain that
 
2013-02-21 11:23:36 AM

halfof33: How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture.


That was my impression from people who read it. Most comments were along the lines of it being surprisingly accurate coming from O'Reilly.
 
2013-02-21 11:23:37 AM
Maus III: case study of every logical fallacy


Ugh, the oppressed christian is so eager to use the laws of thermodynamics when it's  convenient...
 
2013-02-21 11:24:23 AM
And, the civil, tolerant, open-minded liberals show up. They never leave, actually.

Somewhere, a liberal has probably written about how Jeebus was gay and gayer, so go read that instead.
 
2013-02-21 11:24:55 AM

FlashHarry: [i70.photobucket.com image 533x800]


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-21 11:26:42 AM

hubiestubert: So I'm betting that in his version, the Jews didn't do it? The 30 pieces of silver was just a metaphor, and in fact it was proto-Muslims who reached back into the past, thanks to Obama's Time Machine, disguised themselves, and tried to end the reign of the King of Kings, only to fail to realize that their assassination attempt would be foiled by Christ's resurrection, and making Jesus more powerful than they could ever imagine?

I'm just guessing.


3.bp.blogspot.com

There uh  can uh only uh be uh one uh
 
2013-02-21 11:27:12 AM

EyeballKid: Maus III: Is God to blame...


I'm sure I've seen that before, but usually it's in an e-mail from my mother with FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: GOD LOVES YOU!!!!! surrounding it.


What's really bad is Maus is just copy pasta into every thread no matter how unrelated. Yawn.
 
2013-02-21 11:27:43 AM

beantowndog: Can you really call it revisionist if it never happened in the first place?


THIS^

anyways even if there was some sort of elaborate hoax it was simply concocted to stir up anti-semite hate speech

christians are just a bunch of racist bigot retards, who make up fairytales to undermine science

vote democrat
 
2013-02-21 11:27:48 AM

Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!


Athiests owned.  If only their small brains could see the reality of Him in this world.  Truth is, they do.  They'll just never admit it.
 
2013-02-21 11:28:19 AM

Maus III: Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN


Oh, Catholic school Jesuitism, you so crazy...
 
2013-02-21 11:30:41 AM

No Time To Explain: God's omnipotent

/you can't explain that


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

it's been explained
 
2013-02-21 11:32:03 AM

Maus III: "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"


You're probably just trolling, but anyway ...

This is a variant of the "evil is the absence of good" argument. The problem with this argument is that God is supposedly omnipresent, IOW he is everywhere. Since God is supposedly good (which anyone who's read the Bible knows he is not), there can not be an absence of God and therefore no absence of good. IOW evil exists only because the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving God wants it to exist.

Also, it perfectly possible to fill an opaque jar with darkness. Just put the lid on so no light can get in.
 
2013-02-21 11:32:35 AM
So a long, simplistic piece of jingoism to prop up the illegal stte of Isreal?
 
2013-02-21 11:32:55 AM
And Maus III gets turned bright blue for apparently having a lack of oxygen to the brain.
 
2013-02-21 11:33:05 AM
SPOILER ALERT!!!

It was the Jews.
 
2013-02-21 11:33:43 AM

Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!"
He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you.
Let's say there's a sick person over here, and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could...in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."
No answer.
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
No answer.
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.
"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From...God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns, smirking, to the student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Yes."
"Who created evil?"
No answer.
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality?
Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created th ...


tl;dr

Science >> Fairytales >>> Religion

learn how to logic and reason, be rational

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-21 11:34:09 AM

thorthor: Obama did it.

Am I doing it right?


Close.  It was a black atheist Muslim who killed Jesus, of course.  But she's a lesbian.

/and Canadian
//You wouldn't know her
 
2013-02-21 11:34:30 AM

griffer: So a long, simplistic piece of jingoism to prop up the illegal stte of Isreal?


Why do American politicians have such a hard on for Israel?  Seriously, it's one thing to help them but you don't have to do everything as they say do you?
 
2013-02-21 11:34:39 AM
Haters gonna hate
 
2013-02-21 11:35:03 AM

willfullyobscure: No Time To Explain: God's omnipotent

/you can't explain that

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

it's been explained


But is it proven scientifically?
 
2013-02-21 11:35:30 AM

grandma's famous pot pie recipe: Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Athiests owned.  If only their small brains could see the reality of Him in this world.  Truth is, they do.  They'll just never admit it.


Checkmate, Atheists

LOLZ LULZ LOLZ
 
2013-02-21 11:35:42 AM

Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good." ...


I bet you win a lot of arguments this way.  Ever met Clint Eastwood?
 
2013-02-21 11:35:58 AM
Probably that same ex-SEAL that killed Osama.

Fark that guy.
 
2013-02-21 11:36:31 AM
Worlds in Collision was a best seller too.
 
2013-02-21 11:36:43 AM
Actually Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity.
 
2013-02-21 11:37:23 AM

grandma's famous pot pie recipe: Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Athiests owned.  If only their small brains could see the reality of Him in this world.  Truth is, they do.  They'll just never admit it.


Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute.
www.diabetesmine.com
Ok.  I'm ready.
 
2013-02-21 11:37:48 AM

Maus III: Is God to blame?



Farking a strawman instead of a chicken today?
 
2013-02-21 11:37:56 AM

Representative of the unwashed masses: griffer: So a long, simplistic piece of jingoism to prop up the illegal stte of Isreal?

Why do American politicians have such a hard on for Israel?  Seriously, it's one thing to help them but you don't have to do everything as they say do you?


You know who calls the dance, right?
 
2013-02-21 11:38:38 AM

Disposable Rob: halfof33: How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture.

That was my impression from people who read it. Most comments were along the lines of it being surprisingly accurate  coming from O'Reilly.


Aaand there's your problem: Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy didn't come from O'Reilly. What happened was that some once-reputable historian (Martin Duggard, I think) did all the research and wrote both books, and then O'Reilly swooped in with his money and recognition and slapped his name on the covers.

Honestly, I tried reading Killing Lincoln, but I got to something like page five and realized that it wasn't written in crayon. Therefore, not from William O'Reilly.

Also, with all the hype and shiat that came with Killing Lincoln, can we expect an equally-optimistic book on the Iraq Wars?
 
2013-02-21 11:38:46 AM

Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"...


I hope that's a cut and paste job, Tolstoy, because no one should put that much work into a comment in a FARK thread.
 
2013-02-21 11:39:42 AM

I drunk what: grandma's famous pot pie recipe: Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Athiests owned.  If only their small brains could see the reality of Him in this world.  Truth is, they do.  They'll just never admit it.

Checkmate, Atheists

LOLZ LULZ LOLZ


That...that was....um...


I lol'd.
 
2013-02-21 11:39:57 AM

No Time To Explain: willfullyobscure: No Time To Explain: God's omnipotent

/you can't explain that

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

it's been explained

But is it proven scientifically?


It is proven deductively through logical argument, which is kissing cousin to the scientific method, anyway. Read the link. It's worth your time.
 
2013-02-21 11:40:15 AM
Let's start this:

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com


i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

i1197.photobucket.com

Straddling the NSFW line

Probably NSFworkplace viewing.

Same as above

As above...

...So below

Ditto.

SFW just TLFF (Too Large For Fark)

same as above

Yep.

Not unlike above.

Similar to above.

I've never witnessed frauds to move like that. (sfw; too large).

Also relieved that Mr. "you harbor overt paedophilic tendencies if you find K.U. in the least attractive" hasn't shown up yet (even though I know he will soon enough.".
 
2013-02-21 11:41:02 AM
Yes you are, Bill.  Yes, you are.
 
2013-02-21 11:41:14 AM

griffer: Representative of the unwashed masses: griffer: So a long, simplistic piece of jingoism to prop up the illegal stte of Isreal?

Why do American politicians have such a hard on for Israel?  Seriously, it's one thing to help them but you don't have to do everything as they say do you?

You know who calls the dance, right?


*sigh* true...  That guilt over not helping them out before Hitler offed a lot of them sure runs deep...
 
2013-02-21 11:42:21 AM

Maus III: The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.


So... a philosophy professor who does not know anything of Metaphysics or Epistemology?

The chair only exists because we say it does and that sitting in it is it's function. The chair is entirely dependent on us for it's being in any facet of it's existence, save the atoms which it is composed of.
 
2013-02-21 11:43:25 AM

Sinbox: Let's start this:

[i1197.photobucket.com image 463x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 384x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 410x565]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 424x609]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]


[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x426]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 242x638]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 427x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 620x878]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 532x919]

Straddling the NSFW line

Probably NSFworkplace viewing.

Same as above

As above...

...So below

Ditto.

SFW just TLFF (Too Large For Fark)

same as above

Yep.

Not unlike above.

Similar to above.

I've never witnessed frauds to move like that. (sfw; too large).

Also relieved that Mr. "you harbor overt paedophilic tendencies if you find K.U. in the least attractive" hasn't shown up yet (even though I know he will soon enough.".


NO.

ASS.

ON.

DAT.
 
2013-02-21 11:43:46 AM

Sinbox: Let's start this:


Not the thread you were intending, I imagine, and frankly, it's just what this thread needed.
 
2013-02-21 11:43:53 AM

hubiestubert: So I'm betting that in his version, the Jews didn't do it? The 30 pieces of silver was just a metaphor, and in fact it was proto-Muslims who reached back into the past, thanks to Obama's Time Machine, disguised themselves, and tried to end the reign of the King of Kings, only to fail to realize that their assassination attempt would be foiled by Christ's resurrection, and making Jesus more powerful than they could ever imagine?

I'm just guessing.


Actually, the Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Romans did.

Stop guessing.
 
2013-02-21 11:44:21 AM
er, um, huh, hmmm.

well...

sh*tfire.

damnation.

in a year...who'll care?

fark.
 
2013-02-21 11:44:32 AM

Uncle Tractor: Maus III: "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

You're probably just trolling, but anyway ...

This is a variant of the "evil is the absence of good" argument. The problem with this argument is that God is supposedly omnipresent, IOW he is everywhere. Since God is supposedly good (which anyone who's read the Bible knows he is not), there can not be an absence of God and therefore no absence of good. IOW evil exists only because the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving God wants it to exist.

Also, it perfectly possible to fill an opaque jar with darkness. Just put the lid on so no light can get in.


Evil is a relative term used to describe actions another person takes that they think are good that you disagree with.
 
2013-02-21 11:45:06 AM
Does your back hurt from carrying that cross.  It must be tough to be like everyone else.
 
2013-02-21 11:45:47 AM

I drunk what: beantowndog: Can you really call it revisionist if it never happened in the first place?

THIS^

anyways even if there was some sort of elaborate hoax it was simply concocted to stir up anti-semite hate speech

christians are just a bunch of racist bigot retards, who make up fairytales to undermine science

vote democrat


UH to be fair, the years I lived in the south I found PLENTY of hardcore Democrat Baptists and Methodists. And goddamit if they aren't organized and vote. Go ahead and piss off one of those ultra-connected ladies at a church BBQ, sans the accent and say you're Pro-choice and support gay marriage. Go right ahead.

/already knows the results
//for the record, the Conservatives are equally organized and vote. And Baptists too. Go figue
///Did the Civil War ever really end?
 
2013-02-21 11:45:48 AM
He pissed off the Romans and preached heresy. I think we've known that for a while.
 
2013-02-21 11:46:28 AM

Maus III: "Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."


The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"

Haven't seen this particular FWD:FWD:FWD: in a while.  I've always wondered if, at the end of the semester, the student's grade slip reported the absence of a passing grade...

/runner-up to the vasectomy copy-pasta
 
2013-02-21 11:46:36 AM
wildcardjack:
Dear Bill,

Every time you open your mouth another part of me dies.

Love,
Jesus


clane:
wildcardjack is simply another liberal sheep that obviously has never watched his show.  The guy invites Liberals and argues with them one on one. but hey i wouldn't expect anything more from a liberal sheep.
 
2013-02-21 11:46:52 AM

Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!"
He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you.
Let's say there's a sick person over here, and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could...in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."
No answer.
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
No answer.
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.
"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From...God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns, smirking, to the student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Yes."
"Who created evil?"
No answer.
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality?
Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created th ...


The great thing about science is that you don't have to believe it for it to be true.
 
2013-02-21 11:47:41 AM
Sinbox wins the thread.
 
2013-02-21 11:50:08 AM

Citrate1007: The great thing about science is that you don't have to believe it for it to be true.


This needs to be said. OVER AND OVER. To the people who "don't believe in vaccines", etc.
 
2013-02-21 11:50:35 AM

clane: The guy invites Liberals and argues with them one on one.


...and screams over their responses and cuts their mics when they demonstrate how stupid BillO's points are.
 
2013-02-21 11:52:25 AM
The history of Jesus has been under constant revision since 33 AD.  Hell, he wasn't even a deity until 317 AD.
 
2013-02-21 11:52:49 AM
My grandmother will be waiting in line to buy it.
 
2013-02-21 11:54:51 AM
anyone got any excerpts and/or audio clips of Mr Oreally's other famous book: Those Who Trespass

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/03/off_with_those.ph p
 
2013-02-21 11:55:12 AM
I think Sinbox was arguing for the existence of a God that wants men to be happy.
 
2013-02-21 11:55:35 AM
The only way that this could possibly be any good is if O'Reilly pulls and OJ Simpson and decides to call it "Killing Jesus: If I Did It".
 
2013-02-21 11:55:45 AM

Maus III: Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.


What a load of crap.

A scientist of any worth would not fall for the pathetic traps the christian laid out. Is there darkness or cold?? What a joke.

It's a whole strawman story ... typical religious person cannot argue with what we say so they invent a cutesy little story.
 
2013-02-21 11:58:30 AM
The cool part is there are three different editions that come with alternate endings. Collect all three!
 
2013-02-21 12:00:38 PM

Sinbox: Let's start this:

[i1197.photobucket.com image 463x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 384x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 410x565]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 424x609]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]


[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x426]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 242x638]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 427x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 620x878]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 532x919]

Straddling the NSFW line

Probably NSFworkplace viewing.

Same as above

As above...

...So below

Ditto.

SFW just TLFF (Too Large For Fark)

same as above

Yep.

Not unlike above.

Similar to above.

I've never witnessed frauds to move like that. (sfw; too large).

Also relieved that Mr. "you harbor overt paedophilic tendencies if you find K.U. in the least attractive" hasn't shown up yet (even though I know he will soon enough.".


Someone's posting in the wrong thread.

i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-21 12:00:47 PM

Sinbox: er, um, huh, hmmm.

well...

sh*tfire.

damnation.

in a year...who'll care?

fark.


No apologies necessary. Have you noticed what's going on in this thread? Another pissing match between the Church of Nuh-Uh and the Church of Yuh-huh.

You do the Lord's work, my son.*

* It's a figure of speech, no need to beat me to death with your autographed special-edition copy of St. Hitchens.
 
2013-02-21 12:02:02 PM
The challenge, I suppose, is making the book longer than 4 words.

"The Jews did it." The End.

/also, does this book get filed under 'fiction'?
 
2013-02-21 12:03:31 PM
I am half way through Killing Lincoln and the only reason I am reading it is because my sister gave it to me as a gift. My first thought upon picking it up was that I would have to read two books , this one and another more historically accurate account. However that may not be the case based on what I have read so far.

As a bonus, and much to my surprise, I have been spared the drudgery of hearing O'Reilly tell the story. This says to me that Martin Dugard wrote it, and O'Reilly put his name on it so it would sell.

In any case, it is exposing people to Lincoln, which I believe is a good thing. Sis also gave me  Killing Kennedy. Having read Fletcher Prouty's book on the subject, I am actually quite looking forward to O'Reilly/Dugards's version and the accuracy there will tell me more about the accuracy in Killing Lincoln.

Killing Jesus? I think I'll step back for that one as I share the sentiments of  vernonFLon that particular tale.
 
2013-02-21 12:03:32 PM
Maus III

Please say that you made that post sarcastically.  I'm serious.  The author does everything he can to designate the "professor" as the bad guy and a moron, yet it is impossible to agree with the "christian".  This is the worst attempt at a theodicy that I've ever seen (in reality, this is a summary of standard theodicies, made worst by being written by a bitter, wicked, and frankly stupid person).

The christian doesn't understand that there is a difference between words and real things that we refer to with those words.  This should be obvious even to children, but whatever.

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

The professor is not asking "Why do we have words for Darkness and Light?", just as he is not asking "Why do we have words for Good and Evil?"  The Christian's response is  that, because we have darkness and light, that we thus have words for them.  No shiat.  That's not the question.  Look at it this way.. if we had only darkness or only light, then we wouldn't have separate words for such.. and we wouldn't be having this retarded conversation.  Why must it be the case that we have both?  That is the question.  Saying "Because it is" simply isn't an answer to that question.  These naturalistic arguments are some of the most common I hear and, honestly, the most bizarre.  They are clearly conceived by crazy people and propagated by the uncritical, as the entire set of arguments follows the form of "Well, X exists... so.. uh.. X must exist. Therefore God!"

But let's entertain this idiocy for a moment.  Is the Christian really trying to argue that that Good and Evil are relative, just like darkness and light? Like up and down?  This changes God from being "All Good" to merely being "The Most Good".  Christians actively despise any suggestion of moral relativism (usually accusing them of being sociopaths or something), so I find this defense extremely odd.

Let's even accept that some "Darkness" must exist for there to be "Light" (even though, as I said, the dual necessity is only such because we observed the duality and constructed our language to match).  Why must there be so much darkness?  Why can't there just be a bit of darkness, hidden away in a box somewhere, for all to see (or, not see) so that we may know what "light" is by comparison?  That is, would people really deny the existence of evil merely because Hitler hadn't killed millions of people?  Then why was it necessary for that to happen?

The rest of your story is strawmen and nonsensical crazy person talk.  Admit that either 1) Your god is not O3 (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) or 2) Evil is a human construct (and thus not really "real"), as all things created by an O3 God must by definition be Good.  These are the only solutions I've seen that aren't insane.  More importantly, though, is that the problem itself relies on the existence of an unproven being that intervenes in the world, which makes any solution at least partially insane.
 
2013-02-21 12:05:34 PM

Uncle Tractor: Someone's posting in the wrong thread.


No, I think it was exactly right.
 
2013-02-21 12:06:20 PM

hdhale: hubiestubert: So I'm betting that in his version, the Jews didn't do it? The 30 pieces of silver was just a metaphor, and in fact it was proto-Muslims who reached back into the past, thanks to Obama's Time Machine, disguised themselves, and tried to end the reign of the King of Kings, only to fail to realize that their assassination attempt would be foiled by Christ's resurrection, and making Jesus more powerful than they could ever imagine?

I'm just guessing.

Actually, the Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Romans did.

Stop guessing.


Who paid the 30 pieces of silver? You might want to go back and read those sections again. The Romans certainly did the deed, but who put them up to it? Who plotted the betrayal? Obviously NOT the Jews, because Israel is our ally, and the the US would never ally with anyone who betrayed Jesus, right? Obviously the Jewish patriarchs were misrepresented, just as the money changers, because bankers love money, and money comes from being right with the Lord, so thus we can only blame the MSM for portraying them as such, and it must be the fault of feminists backed by Muslim heathens who want to sully the Lord and Jesus' good name...
 
2013-02-21 12:08:29 PM

Sinbox: Let's start this:


i1197.photobucket.com

So you working on 'The Killing of Kittens' book?
 
2013-02-21 12:10:37 PM

Representative of the unwashed masses: griffer: Representative of the unwashed masses: griffer: So a long, simplistic piece of jingoism to prop up the illegal stte of Isreal?

Why do American politicians have such a hard on for Israel?  Seriously, it's one thing to help them but you don't have to do everything as they say do you?

You know who calls the dance, right?

*sigh* true...  That guilt over not helping them out before Hitler offed a lot of them sure runs deep...


no not guilt... look into evangelical millennials, and the term dispensationalism...  in summary... the Christians need the Jews to retake their promised homeland... to set about the end times and the jews will be destroyed and the Christians will be raptured into heaven... Bush and his 'advisors' were big into the evangelical millennial movement. (shock and surprise).

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=216
 
2013-02-21 12:10:43 PM

falkone32: Maus IIIPlease say that you


for you, my friend:

images.cabelas.com
 
2013-02-21 12:10:44 PM

dragonchild: Uncle Tractor: Someone's posting in the wrong thread.

No, I think it was exactly right.


Seconded.
 
2013-02-21 12:11:27 PM

grxymkjbn: clane: The guy invites Liberals and argues with them one on one.

...and screams over their responses and cuts their mics when they demonstrate how stupid BillO's points are.


clane:
Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Is it just the nature of the beast that Liberals are always wrong?  He does interrupt but usually when they get off point and it's hard to get a liberal to stay on point.  But what's the last thing he almost always says at the end of a debate?You wouldn't know because you have maybe seen some YouTube clip on some circle jerks site.He says "you get the last word"
 
2013-02-21 12:12:45 PM
Nabb1:

I hope that's a cut and paste job, Tolstoy, because no one should put that much work into a comment in a FARK thread.

Yeah it is, I see it every now and then on FB except they usually replace the christian with Albert Einstein

/notthisshiatagain.jpg
 
2013-02-21 12:15:53 PM
O'Reilly really doesn't care about factual accuracy, scholarship, or even setting up some alternative reality that is consistent and coherent. He is basically a snake-oil salesman that is running a cult for profit.

His top two goals are:

1) Making money by selling his books to the idiots who watch his show.

2) Convincing his followers that he has the true insights that liberals, etc. are trying to keep them from learning and thus they should trust him and almost nobody else. In other words he wants to lock in his TV audience and book buyers.

Such an easily controlled following is useful for all sorts of political purposes but that use doesn't seem to be one of his major purposes. Instead his leadership gives his respect among other conservatives as a potential major force.

O'Reilly and Glen Beck are playing the same game though Bill is more mainstream about it.
 
2013-02-21 12:20:47 PM

clane: grxymkjbn: clane: The guy invites Liberals and argues with them one on one.

...and screams over their responses and cuts their mics when they demonstrate how stupid BillO's points are.

clane:
Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Is it just the nature of the beast that Liberals are always wrong?  He does interrupt but usually when they get off point and it's hard to get a liberal to stay on point.  But what's the last thing he almost always says at the end of a debate?You wouldn't know because you have maybe seen some YouTube clip on some circle jerks site.He says "you get the last word"


It's a schtick.  He is an entertainer.  Much like Jon Stewart, but in an debate format.  His show isn't as scripted as the daily show, but it certainly is not of-the-cuff. All of that is okay, if you like it. But make no mistake about it, you are the product being sold. He is going to stroke your conservo-button till you freedomgasm. Bill is always going to come out looking right, and the liberal is always going to look bumbling. That is the schtick.
 
2013-02-21 12:23:47 PM
graphics8.nytimes.com
"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence."   - Neal Degrass Tyson


/religion is for chumps
 
2013-02-21 12:25:18 PM

griffer: So a long, simplistic piece of jingoism to prop up the illegal stte of Isreal?


You sound antisemitic.
 
2013-02-21 12:26:57 PM

Mentat: [i1282.photobucket.com image 353x249]

The 'H' is silent.


I didn't know what that was, so I Googled "Christoph Waltz Jesus" and found that beautiful skit. Thank you, sir.
 
2013-02-21 12:29:30 PM

HairBolus: O'Reilly really doesn't care about factual accuracy, scholarship, or even setting up some alternative reality that is consistent and coherent. He is basically a snake-oil salesman that is running a cult for profit.

His top two goals are:

1) Making money by selling his books to the idiots who watch his show.

2) Convincing his followers that he has the true insights that liberals, etc. are trying to keep them from learning and thus they should trust him and almost nobody else. In other words he wants to lock in his TV audience and book buyers.

Such an easily controlled following is useful for all sorts of political purposes but that use doesn't seem to be one of his major purposes. Instead his leadership gives his respect among other conservatives as a potential major force.

O'Reilly and Glen Beck are playing the same game though Bill is more mainstream about it.


Can you please explain how the Killing Lincoln book was inaccurate?
 
2013-02-21 12:32:33 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I think Sinbox was arguing for the existence of a God that wants men to be happy.


I don't see anyone arguing with that.
 
2013-02-21 12:33:28 PM
You know, I've never entirely understood why Christians are so angry at Judas and Teh Jews for causing Christ's execution, while simultaneously preaching that his death was a necessary ritual sacrifice that liberated all humanity from eternal damnation. If it was God's plan to be crucified, then Judas should be revered at the disciple who loved Him most.

Have you got a charming Facebook fabricated anecdote to answer that one, Maus III?
 
2013-02-21 12:33:46 PM

NateGrey: griffer: So a long, simplistic piece of jingoism to prop up the illegal stte of Isreal?

You sound antisemitic.


Today, I am anti-septic.
 
2013-02-21 12:34:07 PM
I never believed in evil until someone on fark posted a fecking wall of text of philosophic mush in gotdamn over-sized font.

I bet Hitler used over-sized font.
 
2013-02-21 12:35:04 PM
so anyways ... enough about that story.
 
2013-02-21 12:35:22 PM
Jesus is dying on the cross, and Peter is down the hill comforting Mary Magdalene when he hears Jesus' faint voice, "Peter. . . Peter. . ."

"I must go and help my Savior," he said and went up the hill, only to be beaten and kicked back down by the Roman centurions guarding the cross. But soon he hears, "Peter. . . Peter," in even fainter tones but he cannot ignore the call. Peter limps up the hill, leans a ladder against the cross, and gets halfway up when the centurions knock over the ladder, beats him brutally, and tosses him back down the hill.

Again he hears, "Peter. . . Peter. . ." ever fainter, and again, he cannot refuse his Lord. In pain, he slowly staggers up the hill, drags himself up the ladder, and finally gets even with Christ's face. Just as the centurions are reaching for the ladder, Jesus says, "Peter. . . Peter. . . look, I can see your house from here."
 
2013-02-21 12:36:54 PM

Hickory-smoked: You know, I've never entirely understood why Christians are so angry at Judas and Teh Jews for causing Christ's execution, while simultaneously preaching that his death was a necessary ritual sacrifice that liberated all humanity from eternal damnation. If it was God's plan to be crucified, then Judas should be revered at the disciple who loved Him most.

Have you got a charming Facebook fabricated anecdote to answer that one, Maus III?


They're still mad because Judas got all the best songs in "Jesus Christ: Superstar."
 
2013-02-21 12:38:04 PM

hubiestubert: So I'm betting that in his version, the Jews didn't do it? The 30 pieces of silver was just a metaphor, and in fact it was proto-Muslims who reached back into the past, thanks to Obama's Time Machine, disguised themselves, and tried to end the reign of the King of Kings, only to fail to realize that their assassination attempt would be foiled by Christ's resurrection, and making Jesus more powerful than they could ever imagine?

I'm just guessing.


Snark aside, you know that is exactly what he is going to do.  Something along the lines of "Followers of an extremist Jewish sect, who would centuries later be instrumental in founding the nation of Islam and the beginnings of modern terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Taliban..."  You KNOW he will.
 
2013-02-21 12:38:34 PM

Nabb1: Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"...

I hope that's a cut and paste job, Tolstoy, because no one should put that much work into a comment in a FARK thread.


The story is an old, repeated "straw" discussion between a strawman atheist character and a Christian student. It is remarkably similar in conversation and events to a story where a young Albert Einstein is claimed as the student (though typically that version does not incorrectly identify the Jewish Einstein as a Christian), though by omitting any actual names the Einstein-free variant is not so obviously a lie as it is a poor attempt at a fable.
 
2013-02-21 12:43:52 PM

Uncle Tractor: Sinbox: Let's start this:

[i1197.photobucket.com image 463x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 384x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 410x565]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 424x609]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]


[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x426]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 242x638]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 427x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 620x878]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 532x919]

Straddling the NSFW line

Probably NSFworkplace viewing.

Same as above

As above...

...So below

Ditto.

SFW just TLFF (Too Large For Fark)

same as above

Yep.

Not unlike above.

Similar to above.

I've never witnessed frauds to move like that. (sfw; too large).

Also relieved that Mr. "you harbor overt paedophilic tendencies if you find K.U. in the least attractive" hasn't shown up yet (even though I know he will soon enough.".

Someone's posting in the wrong thread.

[i560.photobucket.com image 420x310]


What are you talking about?  To me he just proved that there is, in fact, a God.
 
2013-02-21 12:46:44 PM
fark it! We'll do it live!
 
2013-02-21 12:50:34 PM
Sinbox > Maus

Kate Upton > Jesus
 
2013-02-21 12:51:02 PM
I wonder how much of his novels Bill O actually "writes?" I'm guessing he has a meeting with his ghost, spews out some half-baked plot twists, and calls it a novel.
 
2013-02-21 12:54:22 PM
Will there be a "War on Christmas" chapter?

ps. thanks for the Kate Upton pics, brightened up my day
 
2013-02-21 12:54:51 PM

Nabb1: Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"...

I hope that's a cut and paste job, Tolstoy, because no one should put that much work into a comment in a FARK thread.


Aw, I missed it. I must have ignored him sometime in the past.

/can't imagine why
 
2013-02-21 12:59:54 PM
fark Bill O'Reilly.
 
2013-02-21 01:00:24 PM

ChrisDe: beantowndog: Can you really call it revisionist if it never happened in the first place?

Don't know much about religion and its history, but don't most scholars accept that he lived and was killed? Regardless of any religion aspects? Seems I was taught that he existed, whether you believe the backstory or not.

/went to a public school, could be 100% wrong


It's actually debatable: there are no contemporary records of Jesus during his time. Earliest record of him was almost a century after his death- so there were no eyewitness reports.
 
2013-02-21 01:02:28 PM

germ78: The challenge, I suppose, is making the book longer than 4 words.

"The Jews did it." The End.

/also, does this book get filed under 'fiction'?


of course, the jews are mythical creatures, the holocaust never happened

can't prove it scientifically
 
2013-02-21 01:05:44 PM

red5ish: The cool part is there are three different editions that come with alternate endings. Collect all three!


upload.wikimedia.org
I butle.
 
2013-02-21 01:05:51 PM

falkone32: The christian doesn't understand that there is a difference between words and real things that we refer to with those words.  This should be obvious even to children, but whatever.


if christians were smarter than children there would be no christians

diagoras.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-21 01:08:51 PM

Old Gnarled Oak: I bet Hitler used over-sized font.



He liked THIS font.
 
2013-02-21 01:11:26 PM
And you right wingers listen to this guy?
 
2013-02-21 01:13:22 PM

hubiestubert: So I'm betting that in his version, the Jews didn't do it? The 30 pieces of silver was just a metaphor, and in fact it was proto-Muslims who reached back into the past, thanks to Obama's Time Machine, disguised themselves, and tried to end the reign of the King of Kings, only to fail to realize that their assassination attempt would be foiled by Christ's resurrection, and making Jesus more powerful than they could ever imagine?

I'm just guessing.


Without RTFA, I'm guessing it's going to be about how Fartbongo and his legions of Secular Progressives are destroying Christianity by dissolving all marraiges and allowing only same sex marraiges and converting all churches to mosques and make even private prayer punishable by death.
 
2013-02-21 01:16:12 PM

Charlie Chingas: And you right wingers listen to this guy?


I've asked a few times for how Killing Lincoln was revisionist, and received no response showing that it was,

It appears that Subby is the one being revisionist.
 
2013-02-21 01:22:01 PM
Kate Upton is fat, period. If she didn't have a nice face, would be average shapeless sally with saggy teets.
 
2013-02-21 01:22:08 PM

hubiestubert: So I'm betting that in his version, the Jews didn't do it? The 30 pieces of silver was just a metaphor, and in fact it was proto-Muslims who reached back into the past, thanks to Obama's Time Machine, disguised themselves, and tried to end the reign of the King of Kings, only to fail to realize that their assassination attempt would be foiled by Christ's resurrection, and making Jesus more powerful than they could ever imagine?

I'm just guessing.


Bill (or his ghost writer) will say that a small sect of radical Jews killed Jesus.  They were then outcast by the good Jews and centuries later started Islam.  Half of the good Jews became Christians and the other half provided financial backing for the Renaissance, imperial expansion of Europe, and Adam Smith's undergrad degree before re-establishing Israel in the late 40's.

And teabagger nutjobs will buy it, and into it, for a couple million bucks.
 
2013-02-21 01:22:33 PM

super_grass: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 533x343]
"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence."   - Neal Degrass Tyson

/religion is for chumps



Is that a fark joke I don't know? Because that's a photo of Laurence Fishburne you have there with your Tyson quote.
 
2013-02-21 01:25:35 PM
Is his historical fiction as hot as his erotic crime novel  Those Who Trespass?
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/03/off_with_those.ph p

 I imagine the Kennedy one could have some steamy sex scenes.
 
2013-02-21 01:26:01 PM

EyeballKid: Maus III: Is God to blame...


I'm sure I've seen that before, but usually it's in an e-mail from my mother with FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: GOD LOVES YOU!!!!! surrounding it.


That is the email of every farking fallacy possible. I mean, FFS, first, no, according to almost every theologian ever,  God did not create evil (or even Satan if you're not an idiot), free will creates evil, and for some reason God values free will over not having evil. That's what faith is about--that you can believe that God values this for a very good reason, and trust that the consequences of it are better than the consequences of basically enslaving humanity. Second, evolution can be observed in a farking petri dish. Third, the scientific method does  not state that a brain does not exist if you don't test it, it states that if something has been observed enough times it is reasonable to assume it will happen again (the sun will rise tomorrow, a living human has a brain, etc.). Fourth,  religion is not something disprovable by science, because science tells you how the frog was made and religion tells you why.

/rant
//This is probably why people don't copypasta that to me.
 
2013-02-21 01:26:38 PM

MarshHawk: Maus III: "Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"

Haven't seen this particular FWD:FWD:FWD: in a while.  I've always wondered if, at the end of the semester, the student's grade slip reported the absence of a passing grade...

/runner-up to the vasectomy copy-pasta


I liked it better when it was a "little johnny" dirty joke.
 
2013-02-21 01:28:56 PM

maram500: Disposable Rob: halfof33: How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture.

That was my impression from people who read it. Most comments were along the lines of it being surprisingly accurate  coming from O'Reilly.

Aaand there's your problem: Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy didn't come from O'Reilly. What happened was that some once-reputable historian (Martin Duggard, I think) did all the research and wrote both books, and then O'Reilly swooped in with his money and recognition and slapped his name on the covers.

Honestly, I tried reading Killing Lincoln, but I got to something like page five and realized that it wasn't written in crayon. Therefore, not from William O'Reilly.

Also, with all the hype and shiat that came with Killing Lincoln, can we expect an equally-optimistic book on the Iraq Wars?


Bill didnt live up to our strawman caricature of him. Must not read!

Holy shiat what a stupid ethos you ha.
 
2013-02-21 01:29:20 PM

halfof33: Charlie Chingas: And you right wingers listen to this guy?

I've asked a few times for how Killing Lincoln was revisionist, and received no response showing that it was,

It appears that Subby is the one being revisionist.


I don't know that you can call a historical novel revisionist (it's a novel, after all). But generally, the history in a historical novel is supposed to be accurate. O'Reilly seems to have trouble with that part.
 
2013-02-21 01:29:25 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-21 01:30:59 PM

PsiChick: God did not create evil (or even Satan if you're not an idiot), free will creates evil, and for some reason God values free will over not having evil.


Based on that, God also values not being omniscient, which is opposed to many religious doctrines.
 
2013-02-21 01:31:24 PM

halfof33: Charlie Chingas: And you right wingers listen to this guy?

I've asked a few times for how Killing Lincoln was revisionist, and received no response showing that it was,

It appears that Subby is the one being revisionist.


Haven't read his stuff. Guy just comes off as pompous and douchy. Left or right, you act like that, I won't pay attention to you. Just wondering what the right sees in this guy.

/Qualifier: I can care less about politics, left or right. both sides suck
 
2013-02-21 01:31:32 PM
thegospelday.files.wordpress.com
 Pilate said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said to him, "Let Him be crucified!"   Then the governor said, "FARK IT!!   WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!!!"
 
2013-02-21 01:32:35 PM

Sinbox: Let's start this:

[i1197.photobucket.com image 463x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 384x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 410x565]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 424x609]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]


[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x426]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 242x638]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 427x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 620x878]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 532x919]

Straddling the NSFW line

Probably NSFworkplace viewing.

Same as above

As above...

...So below

Ditto.

SFW just TLFF (Too Large For Fark)

same as above

Yep.

Not unlike above.

Similar to above.

I've never witnessed frauds to move like that. (sfw; too large).

Also relieved that Mr. "you harbor overt paedophilic tendencies if you find K.U. in the least attractive" hasn't shown up yet (even though I know he will soon enough.".


Favorited forever.  Jesus bless you.
 
2013-02-21 01:32:40 PM
To be fair, you can't really claim that O'Reillly is a crap novelist. Martin Dugard, his "co-author" is a crap novellist; O'Reilly just puts his name on those things.
 
2013-02-21 01:35:33 PM

Thunderpipes: Kate Upton is fat, period. If she didn't have a nice face, would be average shapeless sally with saggy teets.


WHAT'S THAT?  SORRY I CAN"T HEAR YOU OVER THE BLOOD RUSHING TO MY PENIS
 
2013-02-21 01:36:09 PM

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 620x510]


Image looks like he's about to get spunked in the face by a BBC
 
2013-02-21 01:37:40 PM

mbillips: I don't know that you can call a historical novel revisionist (it's a novel, after all). But generally, the history in a historical novel is supposed to be accurate. O'Reilly seems to have trouble with that part.


I mentioned that there were errors in the book, but the ones cited thus far are incredibly minor (he "furls" his brows? Ford's was destroyed in 1862 not 1863? Who gives a shiat)
 
2013-02-21 01:37:41 PM

Maus III: Is God to blame?


tl;dr
www.troll.me
 
2013-02-21 01:39:16 PM

Nabb1: Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"...

I hope that's a cut and paste job, Tolstoy, because no one should put that much work into a comment in a FARK thread.


Isn't it a Chick tract?

(as opposed to that stream of photos a few down ... a chick tract?)
 
2013-02-21 01:40:51 PM

12349876: PsiChick: God did not create evil (or even Satan if you're not an idiot), free will creates evil, and for some reason God values free will over not having evil.

Based on that, God also values not being omniscient, which is opposed to many religious doctrines.


Omnescient != constant interference. You can  know something's going on and not intervene.

So a dick, well, possibly (again: enslave humanity v. free will), but it doesn't negate omnescience for God to not interfere.

*Note: This is Catholic theology as explained to me by my mother, but I've seen correlating data for most Christian beliefs. Other religions' mileages may vary.
 
2013-02-21 01:41:22 PM

dk47: Thunderpipes: Kate Upton is fat, period. If she didn't have a nice face, would be average shapeless sally with saggy teets.

WHAT'S THAT?  SORRY I CAN"T HEAR YOU OVER THE BLOOD RUSHING TO MY PENIS


Farkers like fat chicks, news at 11:00.

Sorry, she is at best, decent late night college bang. No way in hell she should be on the cover of SI, or even in it. I have better abs than her. No muscle at all and saggy boobies at what, age 20 or something? Yuch.
 
2013-02-21 01:41:52 PM
I bet he nails the answer for this one.
 
2013-02-21 01:45:27 PM

halfof33: I mentioned that there were errors in the book, but the ones cited thus far are incredibly minor (he "furls" his brows? Ford's was destroyed in 1862 not 1863? Who gives a shiat)



Chapter 21, 27, etc.

"Grant meets with Lincoln in the Oval Office."

"Lincoln sitting in his Oval Office . . ."

Fact comment:

Oval Office built in 1909 during Taft's administration.


Chapter 39

"Booth's second act of preparation that afternoon was using a pen knife to carve a very small peephole in the back wall of the state box. Now he looks through the hole to get a better view of the president."

Fact comment:

"Despite all attempts to prove, without success, that the hole in the door to box 7 was bored by Booth that same afternoon, a recent letter from Frank Ford of New York City (to Olszewski, April 13, 1962) may clarify the fact. In part, his letter states:

As I told you on your visit here in New York, I say again and unequivocally that John Wilkes Booth did not bore the hole in the door leading to the box President Lincoln occupied the night of the assassination, April 14, 1865  . . .

The hole was bored by my father, Harry Clay Ford, or rather on his orders, and was bored for the very simple reason it would allow the guard, on Parker, easy opportunity whenever he so desired to look into the box rather than to open the inner door to check on the presidential party . . ..
 Citation

From another source:

The authors write that she was forced to wear a padded hood when not on trial, and that she was imprisoned in a cell aboard the monitorMontauk, which was "barely habitable." She suffered from "claustrophobia and disfigurement caused by the hood," and was "barely tended to by her captors." "Sick and trapped in this filthy cell, Mary Surratt took on a haunted, bloated appearance."None of this is true. Mary Surratt was never shackled or hooded at any time. She was never imprisoned aboard theMontauk, buttaken to the Carroll Annex of the Old Capitol Prison before being transferred to the women's section of the Federal Penitentiary at the Washington's Arsenal.

Citation.

You are correct in that some of the typos and issues are blown way out of proportion, but there are a few things that are pretty glaring errors.
 
2013-02-21 01:45:47 PM

Thunderpipes: dk47: Thunderpipes: Kate Upton is fat, period. If she didn't have a nice face, would be average shapeless sally with saggy teets.

WHAT'S THAT?  SORRY I CAN"T HEAR YOU OVER THE BLOOD RUSHING TO MY PENIS

Farkers like fat chicks, news at 11:00.

Sorry, she is at best, decent late night college bang. No way in hell she should be on the cover of SI, or even in it. I have better abs than her. No muscle at all and saggy boobies at what, age 20 or something? Yuch.


Please stop talking. No one believes you aren't a fat disgusting neck beard who gets off on wasting other people's time and energy.
 
2013-02-21 01:47:38 PM

Hickory-smoked: You know, I've never entirely understood why Christians are so angry at Judas and Teh Jews for causing Christ's execution, while simultaneously preaching that his death was a necessary ritual sacrifice that liberated all humanity from eternal damnation. If it was God's plan to be crucified, then Judas should be revered at the disciple who loved Him most.

Have you got a charming Facebook fabricated anecdote to answer that one, Maus III?


No, but he's got a rock opera.
 
2013-02-21 01:50:50 PM

halfof33: Charlie Chingas: And you right wingers listen to this guy?

I've asked a few times for how Killing Lincoln was revisionist, and received no response showing that it was,

It appears that Subby is the one being revisionist.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-21 01:51:54 PM

germ78: /also, does this book get filed under 'fiction'?


He's been in fiction his whole career
 
2013-02-21 01:55:14 PM

OhioKnight: Nabb1: Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"...

I hope that's a cut and paste job, Tolstoy, because no one should put that much work into a comment in a FARK thread.

Isn't it a Chick tract?

(as opposed to that stream of photos a few down ... a chick tract?)


The Chick tract I think you're referring to is an abbreviated version that focuses less on the philosophy and more on outright lies about science.  It's still an amusing read though.
 
2013-02-21 02:06:36 PM
Okay, I want you people to pay attention now.
Who killed Jesus? The Romans and The Jews.
Now where was he killed? The Middle east which is near the Far East, which is China. So he was basically killed by some Italians, some Chinese people and some Jewish people.

Now look at Barrack Obama, he was allegedly born in the USA, the biggest city of which is New York City, which has a large population of Jewish people, Chinese people and Italians. Now, that means that Barrack Obama, who was born pretty much in New York allegedly, was probably the descendant of one of the guys that killed Jesus or he's Irish.
So either way we need to have a violent uprising to kick out this Jesus killing so called President RIGHT NOW!
 
2013-02-21 02:07:22 PM
It'll be one sentence long. "It's all made up, folks"

The end
 
2013-02-21 02:08:14 PM

clane: grxymkjbn: clane: The guy invites Liberals and argues with them one on one.

...and screams over their responses and cuts their mics when they demonstrate how stupid BillO's points are.

clane:
Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Is it just the nature of the beast that Liberals are always wrong?  He does interrupt but usually when they get off point and it's hard to get a liberal to stay on point.  But what's the last thing he almost always says at the end of a debate?You wouldn't know because you have maybe seen some YouTube clip on some circle jerks site.He says "you get the last word"


You can white knight BillO all you want, he's not gonna felafel your pussy.
 
2013-02-21 02:14:11 PM
Lawsuit for plagiarism from Fr. John Dominic Crossan in 3....2....

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Jesus-Exposing-Anti-Semitism/dp/B00 0E NBOG2
 
2013-02-21 02:15:25 PM

Old Gnarled Oak: I never believed in evil until someone on fark posted a fecking wall of text of philosophic mush in gotdamn over-sized font.

I bet Hitler used over-sized font.


Oversized Comic Sans
 
2013-02-21 02:20:36 PM

Maus III: "You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"


Darkness is the absence of light only if we contradict the first farking chapter of the good book.

KJV
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.



according to this, God created darkness prior to creating (or letting there be) light therefore there is darkness and it isn't an absence of anything as light had not been created yet.
so, we would have to revise Genesis 1:3,4 to really argue what the Christian is trying to use here.

/just sayin'
 
2013-02-21 02:28:47 PM
you guys are so predictable
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-02-21 02:29:39 PM
As a Christian, I feel it is my job to post in threads like this just to say...

I'm sorry.  I'm so, so sorry people who claim they understand Christianity have turned into a horde of loud-mouth bullies who think being smug is the same thing as making a logical point.  A lot of us just try to be charitable, treat other people the way we'd like  to be treated, and remember being nice to people is a net gain for the entire world instead of just to whomever I'm trying to be nice to, even if I think they're an addle-pated arsewit.

I honestly don't care about the divinity debate, same as I don't care if MLK got a little sumptin' on the side now and then.  It's still a life with a lot of advice that makes my life suck less.  If you find anything that makes your life and actions suck less - and doesn't make anyone else's suck more (I'm looking at you, fellow 'Christians') - then good on 'ya.

/the greatest trick the devil ever pulled used to be convincing the world he didn't exist
//now it's convincing Christians the worship of Christianity is the same as worshiping Christ
 
2013-02-21 02:34:19 PM

K.B.O. Winston: As a Christian, I feel it is my job to post in threads like this just to say...

I'm sorry.  I'm so, so sorry people who claim they understand Christianity have turned into a horde of loud-mouth bullies who think being smug is the same thing as making a logical point.  A lot of us just try to be charitable, treat other people the way we'd like  to be treated, and remember being nice to people is a net gain for the entire world instead of just to whomever I'm trying to be nice to, even if I think they're an addle-pated arsewit.

I honestly don't care about the divinity debate, same as I don't care if MLK got a little sumptin' on the side now and then.  It's still a life with a lot of advice that makes my life suck less.  If you find anything that makes your life and actions suck less - and doesn't make anyone else's suck more (I'm looking at you, fellow 'Christians') - then good on 'ya.

/the greatest trick the devil ever pulled used to be convincing the world he didn't exist
//now it's convincing Christians the worship of Christianity is the same as worshiping Christ


I always go with the Gandhi quote.  "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  So unlike your Christ."
 
2013-02-21 02:36:37 PM

K.B.O. Winston: As a Christian, I feel it is my job to post in threads like this just to say...

I'm sorry.  I'm so, so sorry people who claim they understand Christianity have turned into a horde of loud-mouth bullies who think being smug is the same thing as making a logical point.  A lot of us just try to be charitable, treat other people the way we'd like  to be treated, and remember being nice to people is a net gain for the entire world instead of just to whomever I'm trying to be nice to, even if I think they're an addle-pated arsewit.

I honestly don't care about the divinity debate, same as I don't care if MLK got a little sumptin' on the side now and then.  It's still a life with a lot of advice that makes my life suck less.  If you find anything that makes your life and actions suck less - and doesn't make anyone else's suck more (I'm looking at you, fellow 'Christians') - then good on 'ya.

/the greatest trick the devil ever pulled used to be convincing the world he didn't exist
//now it's convincing Christians the worship of Christianity is the same as worshiping Christ


i'm ok you're ok

judge not, lest ye judge not

/lol invisible sky wizards and angels are real
//you have to pity these retards
 
2013-02-21 02:36:58 PM

clane: you guys are so predictable


I know someone who's even more predictable.
 
2013-02-21 02:37:39 PM

clane: you guys are so predictable
[images.sodahead.com image 640x476]


You should use that pic in a bunch more threads, never gets old.
 
2013-02-21 02:38:39 PM
Ok, I absolutely refuse to give any money to O'Reilly, so can someone here sum up the extent of which he's done historical revisioning on Kennedy and/or Lincoln?
 
2013-02-21 02:39:19 PM

Isitoveryet: clane: you guys are so predictable

I know someone who's even more predictable.


images.huffingtonpost.com

LOLZ vote democrat
 
2013-02-21 02:42:03 PM

I drunk what: falkone32: The christian doesn't understand that there is a difference between words and real things that we refer to with those words.  This should be obvious even to children, but whatever.

if christians were smarter than children there would be no christians

[diagoras.files.wordpress.com image 800x600]


You get inspiration from TV actor quotes? Well aren't you the critical thinker.
 
2013-02-21 02:45:37 PM
i.imgur.com

I'm sorry, Bill can't hear you.

Might be all the millions he's making, PLUS the endless stream of people telling him he's right and fighting a noble fight EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

/ There is no Republican party anymore
// It's now a money-making business
//// so much money...
//// Like being a contractor during the Iraq War
// "Just report the 70 million as missing, dude."
 
2013-02-21 02:47:22 PM
Killing Jebus makes me think of THIS SHIRT
 
2013-02-21 02:48:49 PM

fanbladesaresharp: You get inspiration from TV actor quotes?


jesus in a myth

house is a REAL person

fanbladesaresharp: Well aren't you the critical thinker.


too bad your not
 
2013-02-21 02:52:03 PM

fanbladesaresharp: You get inspiration from TV actor quotes? Well aren't you the critical thinker.


Actually IDW is playing a strawman atheist character.

He posts things to be deliberately inflammatory in an attempt to portray atheists in a negative light. Typical dishonesty from a religious person.
 
2013-02-21 02:57:36 PM
I'm reading Renan's Life of Jesus, so I'm really getting a kick out of this thread.
 
2013-02-21 03:04:16 PM

Citrate1007: Blah


You know who else liked parables...
 
2013-02-21 03:10:01 PM

beantowndog: Can you really call it revisionist if it never happened in the first place?


Yes, actually. It's not revisionist history, though. It's revisionist fairy-tales.
 
2013-02-21 03:21:12 PM

Farking Canuck: fanbladesaresharp: You get inspiration from TV actor quotes? Well aren't you the critical thinker.

Actually IDW is playing a strawman atheist character.

He posts things to be deliberately inflammatory in an attempt to portray atheists in a negative light. Typical dishonesty from a religious person.


Farking Canuck is doing unfunny satire of an "atheist" defending our honor.  Typical retardation from those who try to attack us.  Obviously he is a religious moran.

3/10
 
2013-02-21 03:31:31 PM
clane:
you guys are so predictable

Isitoveryet:
I know someone who's even more predictable.

clane:
yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN
 
2013-02-21 03:40:57 PM
"Off With Those Pants": Bill O'Reilly Seduces You in Clips From His Dirty Audiobook
 http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/03/off_wi t h_those.php

Here's choice samples of O'Reilly's prose, read by he who trespasses against the English language himself.

This first one comes from an exchange between "Robo," a crack dealer, and his underage girlfriends.

"Say baby, put down that pipe and get my pipe up."

"I would like you to unhook your bra and let it slide down your arms. You can keep your shirt on."

"Cup your hands under your breasts and hold them for ten seconds."

"Off with those pants."


SEXY.
 
2013-02-21 03:41:45 PM

clane: clane:
you guys are so predictable

Isitoveryet:
I know someone who's even more predictable.

clane:
yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN


I knew you'd say that.
 
2013-02-21 03:51:46 PM
I'm waiting for the autobiographical "Killing Knuckle Babies", about his time around the show's interns.
 
2013-02-21 03:54:51 PM
Maus III, I wasn't about to spend the rest of my day mocking that ridiculous story. I'm just glad you left off the usual ending: "That student was Albert Einstein" and made him into a Christian.

Anway, enjoy this annotated, corrected version:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/debunking_an_urban_legend_evil_is_ a_ lack_of_something

Dialogue with a young theist (longer version)

A philosophy professor challenged his students with a form of the Euthyphro dilemma  Did 'God' create everything that exists?" A student replied, "Yes, he did!" (The 'bravely' part is removed: civil disagreement is the very point of philosophy courses, no bravery is required for dissent! Civil dissent is rewarded! Agreement is the death of philosophy, disagreement is its life's blood.)

"God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes," the student replied. (The 'sir' part is removed: no college student in the 21st century addresses a college professor as 'sir' - which demonstrates that whoever it was that made up the original story never went to college. In addition, the use of 'sir' is just a pretense of 'respect' - it comes off as passive aggressive anger more than anything else.)

The professor answered, "Well then, here's a logical puzzle for you: If God created everything, then God created evil; Therefore, according to the principal that 'our works define who we are', 'God' is evil."

The student became silently enraged over his worldview being 'attacked'. He began to project out his feelings of inadequacy as smugness coming from the professor.

The student then said: "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course," replied the professor. That's the point of philosophical discourse. (The writer of the original story clearly has little experience with a real college classroom. The whole point of a philosophy or theology course is to foster discussion.)

Student: Is there such thing as heat?"
Professor: Yes, the professor replies.
Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?"
Professor: "Yes, there's cold too."
Student: "No, there isn't"

The professor doesn't grin or frown or react with any emotion other than curiosity. After all, he's heard bad arguments like this for more years than the student has been alive. (The desire to see the professors 'smug smile wiped off his face' is just another projection of the feelings of inadequacy found in theists who aren't able to argue their own points well...)

The student continues. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence of it"

Professor: (Nodding his head in dismay, and working out how many times he's heard this bad logic by now. 100 times?). Do you remember the section in your workbook on semantic fallacies?

Student: ( gives a confused look a dog might make)

Professor: Let me give you a quick review. Both 'heat' and 'cold' are subjective terms... They are what the philosopher John Locke properly called "secondary qualities". The secondary qualities refer to how we humans experience a very real phenomena: the movement of atomic particles. The terms 'heat' and 'cold' refer to an interaction between human nervous systems and various speeds of atomic particles in their environment. So what we 'really' have is temperature.... the terms 'heat' and "cold' are merely subjective terms we use to denote our relative experience of temperature.

So your entire argument is specious. You have not 'proven' that 'cold' does not exist, or that 'cold' somehow exists without any ontological status, what you have done is shown that 'cold' is a subjective term. Take away the subjective concept, and the 'thing in itself', the temperature we are denoting as 'cold', still exists. Removing the term we use to reference the phenomena does not eradicate the phenomena.

Student: (a bit stunned) "Uh... Ok.... Well, is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

Professor: You are still employing the same logical fallacy. Just with a different set of of secondary qualities.

Student: "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

Professor: "What I am telling you is that you are repeating the very same error. "Darkness" exists as a secondary quality.

Student: "You're wrong again. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darkness, professor?

Professor: Sure, right after you give me a jar of light. Seriously, "light and dark' are subjective terms we use to describe how we humans measure measure photons visually. The photons actually exist, the terms 'light' and 'dark' are just subjective evaluations, relative terms... having to do, again, with an interaction between our nervous systems and another phenomenon of nature - this time, photons. So again, doing away with a subjective term does not eradicate the actual phenomena itself - the photons. Nothing actually changes. If we humans tend to call 'x number of photons' 'dark' (while cats refer to it as 'bright enough for me"

Do you get it now?

Student: (gives a look not unlike a 3 year old trying to work out quantum physics)

Professor: I see your still struggling with the fallacy hidden in your argument. But let's continue, perhaps you'll see it.

Student: Well, you are working on the premise of duality, the christian explains.

Professor: Actually, I've debunked that claim two times now. But carry on.

Student: "Well, you assume, for example, that there is a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.

Professor: Be careful. If you want to place your god beyond the grasps of reason, logic, and science and make him 'unmeasurable', then you are left with nothing but a mystery of your own devising. So if you use this special plead your god beyond reason to solve the problem, you can't call your god moral either. You can't call 'him' anything. You can't say anything else about something that you yourself have defined as beyond reason other than that the term you've created is incoherent. So your solution is akin to treating dandruff by decapitation.

Student: (Gulps. Continues on, oblivious to what was just said) Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them.

Professor: You just said that science cannot explain a thought. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I think what you mean to say is this: there remains many mysteries in neuroscience. Would you agree?

Student: Yes.

Professor: And, along the same line of thought, we accept that there are things like thoughts, or electricity or magnetism even though we have never seen them?

Student: Yes!

Professor: Recall the section in your textbook concerning fallacies of false presumption. Turn to the entry on 'Category error'. You'll recall that a category error occurs when an inappropriate measure is used in regards to an entity, such as asking someone what the color of a sound is... Asking someone to 'see' magnetism directly (and not just its effects) commits such an error. However, there is yet another error in your argument: your assumption that empiricism or even science is based on 'real time observation' alone. This is false. Sight is not the sole means of knowing the world, nor is science merely the study of whatever we are currently looking at. We can use other senses to detect phenomena. And we can also examine their effects upon the world.

Furthermore, you are importing yet another erroneous presumption into the discussion: you are conflating the fact that science is incomplete with the implication that a lack of an answer from naturalism automatically means that your theistic assertion is correct. So you'll also want to review the section on 'arguing form ignorance.'

Do you have more to say?

Student: (The student, continues, mainly unfazed, due to the protection his shield of ignorance affords him.) .... Um....... to view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it"

Professor: You are really in love with this secondary quality fallacy, aren't you? You are again confusing a secondary quality with the phenomena in of itself. "Death" and "life" are subjective terms we use to describe a more fundamental phenomena - biology. The phenomena in question, however, does exist. Biological forms in various states exist. Doing away with the subjective term does not eradicate the existence of death.

Nonplussed, the young man continues: "Is there such a thing as immorality?"

Professor: (Reaches for an aspirin in his desk) You're not going to again confuse a secondary quality for an attribute  are you? Please... what can I do to help you see this problem?

Student: (Continues on, fueled by ideology and oblivious to reality) You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"

Professor: So, if someone murders your mother tonight, nothing happened? There was just an absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot... she's not dead... she's just experiencing an absence of life, right?

Student: Uh.....

Professor: You're beginning to see that something is missing in your argument, aren't you? Here's what you're missing. You are confusing a secondary quality... a subjective term that we can use to describe a phenomena, for the phenomena itself. Perhaps you heard me mention this before? (The class erupts in laughter, the professor motions for them to stop laughing.) 'Immorality' is a descriptive term for a behavior. The terms are secondary, but the behaviors exist. So if you remove the secondary qualities, you do nothing to eradicate the real behavior that the terms only exist to describe in the first place. So by saying that 'immorality' is a lack of morality, you are not removing immoral intentions and behaviors, or the problem of immoral intentions and behaviors from existence, you are just removing the secondary attribute, the subjective term.

And notice how dishonest your argument is on yet another level... in that it speaks of morality and immorality devoid of behavior, but 'evil' exists as a behavior, evil is an intent to do harm and an act committed with such an intent.

By the way, are you really trying to imply that immorality or evil are merely subjective qualities?

Student: Gulp! (Reeling from the psychological blows to his corrupt worldview....) Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, professor?"

The professor soothes his aching forehead, and prepares for the 1 millionth time that he will be subjected to the 'can you see the wind' argument.

Professor: What an interesting turn this conversation has taken. Can I advise you to read Brofenbrenner's suggestion against arguing over subjects over which you are uninformed? It's in your textbook. Page 1.

Student: "Professor, since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?

Professor: Interesting indirect comment on the priesthood. But let's leave that aside... We do observe the process of evolution at work, for the process works at this very moment. As for the implication in your argument that one must 'be there' to observe a process at it occurs, surely you realize that we can infer the process through examining the evidence that these processes leave behind? In a sense, we are there when we observe artifacts.

Consider for example the science of astronomy. How do we know about super novas? Because we can observe different supernovas in different stages of super nova, by observing their 'artifacts' in the night sky. The same stands for any historical science. Your mistake here is that you think science is merely 'real-time-observation'. This is a strawman of science. By your logic trees can't grow - after all, who's actually witnessed a tree growing?

Science is both direct and indirect observation... it also allows for inference. If, for the sake of consistency you were asked to follow your own rule, you'd have to concede that we have no evidence tree growth, or mountain formation - after all, I've never actually seen a seed grow into a tree, I've only seen it in stages.

Student: "But professor! You stated that science is the study of observed phenomena.

Professor: No, this is a strawman of what science is... Science is more than just real time observation, we also observe artifacts and make inferences. But continue....

Student: (Responds to this as a goat might respond to a book on calculus) May I give you an example of what I mean?"

Professor: Certainly.

Student: "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter. The christian points towards professor, "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" "No one appears to have done so", The christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the professor has no brain!"

(So much for the student's pretense of respect, clearly his goal is to ridicule).

Professor: You mean, according to your strawman view of science. I am glad that you are here in my class so that I can help you better understand what you criticize. Science is not merely 'looking' at things. Science is empirical, but also rational. We can make inferences from evidence of things that we do see, back to phenomena that we might not be able to directly see. Such as a functioning brain.

And one inference I can make from observing your behaviors here today is that you've wasted the money you've spent on your logic textbook so far this year. I strongly advise, for your own sake, that you crack open that book today, and start reading. From page 1.
 
2013-02-21 04:04:42 PM

PsiChick: 12349876: PsiChick: God did not create evil (or even Satan if you're not an idiot), free will creates evil, and for some reason God values free will over not having evil.

Based on that, God also values not being omniscient, which is opposed to many religious doctrines.

Omnescient != constant interference. You can  know something's going on and not intervene.

So a dick, well, possibly (again: enslave humanity v. free will), but it doesn't negate omnescience for God to not interfere.

*Note: This is Catholic theology as explained to me by my mother, but I've seen correlating data for most Christian beliefs. Other religions' mileages may vary.


If God is omniscient then He is only giving humans an ILLUSION of free will, not actual free will, because he has to know what will happen in the future.
 
2013-02-21 04:06:28 PM

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 640x360]

I'm sorry, Bill can't hear you.

Might be all the millions he's making, PLUS the endless stream of people telling him he's right and fighting a noble fight EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

/ There is no Republican party anymore
// It's now a money-making business
//// so much money...
//// Like being a contractor during the Iraq War
// "Just report the 70 million as missing, dude."


clane:
you Liberals are all sheep, you all convince eachother that if anyone is sligtly conservative that you must be a evil greedy b*stard.  step away from the koolaid for just a second.

Bill's Charities


Wounded Warrior Project

The Wounded Warrior Project seeks to assist those men and women of our armed forces who have been severely injured during the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hot spots around the world. Many of the injuries are traumatic amputations, gunshot wounds, burns and blast injuries that will retire these brave warriors from military service.


Fisher House Foundation

Because members of the military and their families are stationed worldwide and must often travel great distances for specialized medical care, Fisher House Foundation donates "comfort homes," built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers. These homes enable family members to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times - during the hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease, or injury. Online donations can be made in honor of or in memory of an individual or organization.


Doctors Without Borders

Doctors Without Borders is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. Today, Doctors Without Borders provides independent, impartial assistance in more than 60 countries to people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe, primarily due to armed conflict, epidemics, malnutrition, exclusion from health care, or natural disasters. Doctors Without Borders provides independent, impartial assistance to those most in need. Doctors Without Borders also reserves the right to speak out to bring attention to neglected crises, challenge inadequacies or abuse of the aid system, and to advocate for improved medical treatments and protocols.


Tuesday's Children

Tuesday's Children is a non-profit family service organization that has made a long-term commitment to every individaul who was directly impacted by the events of September 11, 2001. Tuesday's Children has developed a unique platform of programs that foster the mental health and well being of families dealing with trauma, grief, and physical iillness. Based on a proven methodology of healing through community, Tuesday's Children's mission includes Project COMMON BOND, an inititative that reaches out to young adults from around the world who have been directly impacted by terrorism.


TroopsDirect

TroopsDirect supports our front line troops exclusively at larger unit levels with the objective of making them the healthiest, most energized and highest spirited Marines, soldiers, aircrew and sailors that we can. We function as a non-profit 'back line' of supply for units based in Afghanistan, Africa, at sea and other in other 'hot spots'. We communicate with the front lines daily and provide -in bulk- detailed hygiene, nutrition, gear and K9 support.


NYC Coalition for the Homeless

Coalition for the Homeless is the nation's oldest advocacy and direct service organization helping homeless men, women, and children. They are dedicated to the principle that affordable housing, sufficient food, and the chance to work for a living wage are fundamental rights in a civilized society. Since its inception in 1981, the Coalition has worked through litigation, public education, and direct services to ensure that these goals are realized. Every day, the Coalition helps over 3,500 clients with the tools and support to reclaim their lives. Through housing, job training, emergency food, crisis intervention, and youth programs, they rescue men, women and children caught in the grips of poverty.


The Haitian Health Foundation

The Haitian Health Foundation is a registered charity that aims to improve the lives of the poor and infirm in the greater Jeremie area of Haiti with a focus on women and children.

They offer a variety of services including safe motherhood services, self-help programs, outpatient clinics, public outreach programs and also responding to emergencies and crises with humanitarian relief.

If you would like to learn more about the work they do or to make a donation, please visit their website.


Best Friends Foundation

The Best Friends Foundation promotes the well-being of adolescent girls and the prevention of teenage pregnancy by encouraging positive alternatives to premature sexual activity and illicit drug or alcohol use.

If you would like to donate, please contact:

The Best Friends Foundation
4455 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 310
Washington, DC 20008
(202) 237-8156

You can also visit their website.
 
2013-02-21 04:07:52 PM

mbillips: halfof33: Charlie Chingas: And you right wingers listen to this guy?

I've asked a few times for how Killing Lincoln was revisionist, and received no response showing that it was,

It appears that Subby is the one being revisionist.

I don't know that you can call a historical novel revisionist (it's a novel, after all). But generally, the history in a historical novel is supposed to be accurate. O'Reilly seems to have trouble with that part.


Okay so the oval office thing was stupid but I don't see anything particularly egregious.
 
2013-02-21 04:09:10 PM

clane: yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN


I get my news from NPR, Al Jazeera English, and BBC. Of course, you'll handwave all those as foreign liberal outlets as well.
 
2013-02-21 04:09:38 PM

PsiChick: 12349876: PsiChick: God did not create evil (or even Satan if you're not an idiot), free will creates evil, and for some reason God values free will over not having evil.

Based on that, God also values not being omniscient, which is opposed to many religious doctrines.

Omnescient != constant interference. You can  know something's going on and not intervene.

So a dick, well, possibly (again: enslave humanity v. free will), but it doesn't negate omnescience for God to not interfere.

*Note: This is Catholic theology as explained to me by my mother, but I've seen correlating data for most Christian beliefs. Other religions' mileages may vary.


Omniscience negates free will. If God knows what's going to happen in advance, man has no choice in the matter. Or: "free will" is just another word for "ignorance".

/And Bill O'Reilly is a douchbag
 
2013-02-21 04:31:47 PM
Fox News is now QVC for right wingers to sell their goods.

Bills been selling crap forever. But whateves a fool and his money are soon parted so it does not bother me a bit that his fans buy his stuff
 
2013-02-21 04:35:59 PM

clane: you guys are so predictable
[images.sodahead.com image 640x476]


Bless your heart.
 
2013-02-21 04:44:05 PM
clane:
yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN


zarberg:
I get my news from NPR, Al Jazeera English, and BBC. Of course, you'll handwave all those as foreign liberal outlets as well.

clane:

Liberal outlets, oh goodness no not at all!! Those are some fine well balanced center of the road news reporting agencies that I couldn't imagine leaning left.In fact when i want honest news the first thing i think is NPR, and the BBC or Al Jazeera foreign? That's just ridiculous, don't be silly.  But hey, you keep up the fine work of staying well informed.

\Liberals are funny and sad at the same time
 
2013-02-21 04:46:54 PM

clane: clane:
yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN

zarberg:
I get my news from NPR, Al Jazeera English, and BBC. Of course, you'll handwave all those as foreign liberal outlets as well.

clane:

Liberal outlets, oh goodness no not at all!! Those are some fine well balanced center of the road news reporting agencies that I couldn't imagine leaning left.In fact when i want honest news the first thing i think is NPR, and the BBC or Al Jazeera foreign? That's just ridiculous, don't be silly.  But hey, you keep up the fine work of staying well informed.

\Liberals are funny and sad at the same time


Awwww, such a cute little attempt at sarcasm. I knew I had you shaded in derptastic red for a reason! Republicons are so adorable when they try to keep up with smart folks
 
2013-02-21 04:50:01 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: PsiChick: 12349876: PsiChick: God did not create evil (or even Satan if you're not an idiot), free will creates evil, and for some reason God values free will over not having evil.

Based on that, God also values not being omniscient, which is opposed to many religious doctrines.

Omnescient != constant interference. You can  know something's going on and not intervene.

So a dick, well, possibly (again: enslave humanity v. free will), but it doesn't negate omnescience for God to not interfere.

*Note: This is Catholic theology as explained to me by my mother, but I've seen correlating data for most Christian beliefs. Other religions' mileages may vary.

Omniscience negates free will. If God knows what's going to happen in advance, man has no choice in the matter. Or: "free will" is just another word for "ignorance".

/And Bill O'Reilly is a douchbag


You're assuming that (a) there's only one way events can unfold, and (b) God can only see or comprehend a single timeline or set of outcomes.  We live in a universe of probabilities, not certainties; any truly omniscient being would have to be able to work with order and chaos alike.
 
2013-02-21 04:58:11 PM

Darth_Lukecash: It's actually debatable: there are no contemporary records of Jesus during his time.


I would expect very few written records of a rabbi of a minor culture who practiced in an oral tradition, located in a backward of the Roman Empire, who only came to that organization's attention a few weeks prior to his execution. And the Romans executed a lot of people.

Simply, to anyone who wrote for a living, Jesus wasn't a significant figure until his post-death cult gathered some steam and started making noise in Rome. It was only at that point that some historians started digging into who this guy was.

Let me put it this way -- what percentage of the organizational files do you think survived from Rome's bureaucracy circa year zero? It's hard enough for me to track down US government documents from 50 years ago, and they keep everything.
 
2013-02-21 05:02:57 PM

clane: clane:
yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN

zarberg:
I get my news from NPR, Al Jazeera English, and BBC. Of course, you'll handwave all those as foreign liberal outlets as well.

clane:

Liberal outlets, oh goodness no not at all!! Those are some fine well balanced center of the road news reporting agencies that I couldn't imagine leaning left.In fact when i want honest news the first thing i think is NPR, and the BBC or Al Jazeera foreign? That's just ridiculous, don't be silly.  But hey, you keep up the fine work of staying well informed.

\Liberals are funny and sad at the same time


Reality has a well-documented liberal bias.
 
2013-02-21 05:15:18 PM

ciberido: bet you win a lot of arguments this way. Ever met Clint Eastwood?


Why don't you have a seat over there...

//kidding. but at least it's timely.
 
2013-02-21 05:22:49 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: PsiChick: 12349876: PsiChick: God did not create evil (or even Satan if you're not an idiot), free will creates evil, and for some reason God values free will over not having evil.

Based on that, God also values not being omniscient, which is opposed to many religious doctrines.

Omnescient != constant interference. You can  know something's going on and not intervene.

So a dick, well, possibly (again: enslave humanity v. free will), but it doesn't negate omnescience for God to not interfere.

*Note: This is Catholic theology as explained to me by my mother, but I've seen correlating data for most Christian beliefs. Other religions' mileages may vary.

Omniscience negates free will. If God knows what's going to happen in advance, man has no choice in the matter. Or: "free will" is just another word for "ignorance".

/And Bill O'Reilly is a douchbag


...How does omniscience negate free will? We don't know, and can't, how a farking  God would perceive time--maybe God just sees all possible paths within the laws of physics and we choose which one we go down. That's certainly free will.
 
2013-02-21 05:31:03 PM

give me doughnuts: clane: clane:
yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN

zarberg:
I get my news from NPR, Al Jazeera English, and BBC. Of course, you'll handwave all those as foreign liberal outlets as well.

clane:

Liberal outlets, oh goodness no not at all!! Those are some fine well balanced center of the road news reporting agencies that I couldn't imagine leaning left.In fact when i want honest news the first thing i think is NPR, and the BBC or Al Jazeera foreign? That's just ridiculous, don't be silly.  But hey, you keep up the fine work of staying well informed.

\Liberals are funny and sad at the same time

Reality has a well-documented liberal bias.


that's because liberals understand science but conservitards believe in fairy tales

we should at least pity them
 
2013-02-21 05:34:20 PM

PsiChick: Omniscience negates free will. If God knows what's going to happen in advance, man has no choice in the matter. Or: "free will" is just another word for "ignorance".

/And Bill O'Reilly is a douchbag

...How does omniscience negate free will? We don't know, and can't, how a farking God would perceive time--maybe God just sees all possible paths within the laws of physics and we choose which one we go down. That's certainly free will


being omniscient is being all knowing. i don't think being omniscient leaves room for an unknown condition.
 
2013-02-21 05:36:17 PM
i.imgur.com
No one farks with the Jesus.
 
2013-02-21 05:37:49 PM

clane: you guys are so predictable
[images.sodahead.com image 640x476]


It's easy to predict what's going to happen in a story if you're writing all the dialog yourself.
 
2013-02-21 05:39:02 PM

I drunk what: Isitoveryet: clane: you guys are so predictable

I know someone who's even more predictable.

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 250x328]

LOLZ vote democrat


I still, to this very day, wonder what the hell it is you DID drink.
 
2013-02-21 05:41:38 PM

ChrisDe: beantowndog: Can you really call it revisionist if it never happened in the first place?

Don't know much about religion and its history, but don't most scholars accept that he lived and was killed? Regardless of any religion aspects? Seems I was taught that he existed, whether you believe the backstory or not.

/went to a public school, could be 100% wrong


JFK? Of course he existed!

/Lincoln I'm not so sure about, though...
 
2013-02-21 05:46:09 PM
Maus III: (Quote cut out for brevity)


That's a nice story. That this hypothetical, rather histrionic professor had a weak argument does not make Jesus a thing though, obviously.

I would have simply asked the class this question: "If some person or entity came to you claiming that they were in fact the one true God, how could they ever prove it?"

I posit that noone can answer that question sufficiently. Hypothetical God can show you the birth of the universe? Time machine. Hypothetical God knows everything about you? Well researched maybe? Using tech?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Asimov's Third Law
 
2013-02-21 05:58:20 PM

MadSkillz: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Asimov's Third Law


That's actually Clarke's third law. Asmiov's is that a robot must protects its own existence as long as it doesn't conflict with the first or second laws.
 
2013-02-21 05:59:10 PM

GreenAdder: Asmiov's is that a robot must protects


And apparently I'm typing like Skwisgaar Skwigelf today.
 
2013-02-21 06:02:29 PM
With two historically revisionist novels about the killings of John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln under his belt, Bill O'Reilly is now writing a book entitled "Killing Jesus"

What the hell do any of you non-Christians care? Don't read it, just like I, a non-paranoid non-conspiracy-nut, don't watch Oliver Stone movies.
 
2013-02-21 06:04:58 PM

zarberg: Awwww, such a cute little attempt at sarcasm. I knew I had you shaded in derptastic red for a reason! Republicons are so adorable when they try to keep up with smart folks


I don't know how that one escaped my attention all this time. Shaded to Red 2 after checking the profile. Ugh.
 
2013-02-21 06:09:42 PM
BTW the Gospel accounts of the arrest and trial of Jesus have some rather large problems. Two of the big ones are the time of the trial by the Sanhedrin, they weren't allowed to have trials that run after sunset. And then there's the whole matter of handing Jesus over to the Romans. Not only did Jewish law forbid turning over a Jew to non-Jewish authorities for violations of Jewish law and then there's just turning Jesus over to the Romans in the first place. Per Jewish law if the Romans wanted to try to Jesus they had to arrest him themselves.
 
2013-02-21 06:15:54 PM
Corrections to the work  "Killing Jesus", by Bill O'Reilly, insert addendum 2014, July 8:


Saint Peter's nickname was not "Stinky Pete".

The 30 coins of silver that Judas received were not date-stamped 33 B.C.

Jesus' guiding philosophy of life was not "hey, shiat happens".

It is not historically proven that Mary Magdeline cultivated and smoked a sticky so icky you could get wicked high by drinking the water from her foot washing tub.

Jesus did not grab a rock and totally bean that adulteress ho' and then yell "Booyah!" after his "cast the first stone" speech.

Casting lots is a form of gambling or divination, not a sexual proclivity practiced by Roman auxiliaries.

A fisher of men is not a person who trolls public parks and rest areas for gay sex.

John the Baptist was likely not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and was definitely not it's president in 1948.

Jesus did not really meet The Vampire Lestat while on the cross.  That character is a fictional creation of author Anne Rice.  He also never had tea with Dr. Who or discussed the philosophical implications of what it means to be human with a time traveling Star Trek TNG's Data (although a discussion in a holodeck with a simulation Jesus may have occurred, Data was really into that kind of shiat).
...
 
2013-02-21 06:17:03 PM
It's happened...IDW has finally snapped.  This is the closest I've seen to an outright tantrum from him.
 
2013-02-21 06:24:29 PM

GreenAdder: MadSkillz: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Asimov's Third Law

That's actually Clarke's third law. Asmiov's is that a robot must protects its own existence as long as it doesn't conflict with the first or second laws.


Doh. The name was obliterated when I copy pasted and so I typed it in and my mind went to Asimov.
 
2013-02-21 06:36:54 PM

Farker Soze: Corrections to the work  "Killing Jesus", by Bill O'Reilly, insert addendum 2014, July 8:


Saint Peter's nickname was not "Stinky Pete".

The 30 coins of silver that Judas received were not date-stamped 33 B.C.

Jesus' guiding philosophy of life was not "hey, shiat happens".

It is not historically proven that Mary Magdeline cultivated and smoked a sticky so icky you could get wicked high by drinking the water from her foot washing tub.


Also, Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes
 
2013-02-21 06:38:06 PM

guestguy: It's happened...IDW has finally snapped.  This is the closest I've seen to an outright tantrum from him.


We all go through dark times.

If indeed IDW is really angry and not just doing his normal schtick, I wish him well and hope things improve for him.
 
2013-02-21 06:42:50 PM

ciberido: guestguy: It's happened...IDW has finally snapped.  This is the closest I've seen to an outright tantrum from him.

We all go through dark times.

If indeed IDW is really angry and not just doing his normal schtick, I wish him well and hope things improve for him.


No one sane, not even a troll, posts the way he does.  He's clearly bipolar.
 
2013-02-21 07:09:15 PM
 I'll give the book a chance just to read the chapter where Jesus fights off the velociraptors.
 
2013-02-21 07:14:00 PM

PsiChick: ..How does omniscience negate free will? We don't know, and can't, how a farking God would perceive time--maybe God just sees all possible paths within the laws of physics and we choose which one we go down. That's certainly free will.


Free will cannot exist in a Universe with an omniscient deity who can intervene at any time for any reason and leave no evidence.
 
2013-02-21 07:26:07 PM

clane: clane:
yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN

zarberg:
I get my news from NPR, Al Jazeera English, and BBC. Of course, you'll handwave all those as foreign liberal outlets as well.

clane:

Liberal outlets, oh goodness no not at all!! Those are some fine well balanced center of the road news reporting agencies that I couldn't imagine leaning left.In fact when i want honest news the first thing i think is NPR, and the BBC or Al Jazeera foreign? That's just ridiculous, don't be silly.  But hey, you keep up the fine work of staying well informed.

\Liberals are funny and sad at the same time


Politics aside, did you graduate high school? Because you argue like someone who never made it that far.
 
2013-02-21 07:30:40 PM

guestguy: It's happened...IDW has finally snapped.  This is the closest I've seen to an outright tantrum from him.


I think I may have had something to do with that.
 
2013-02-21 07:39:43 PM

Ishkur: guestguy: It's happened...IDW has finally snapped.  This is the closest I've seen to an outright tantrum from him.

I think I may have had something to do with that.


He's been off his meds for about a month now. Ever since he announced he was quitting Fark.
 
2013-02-21 07:57:38 PM

Farking Canuck: He's been off his meds for about a month now. Ever since he announced he was quitting Fark.


I think I may have had something to do with that, too.
 
2013-02-21 08:05:20 PM
Leroy, Leroy, Llamas are bad for me.
 
2013-02-21 08:26:04 PM

WhyteRaven74: BTW the Gospel accounts of the arrest and trial of Jesus have some rather large problems. Two of the big ones are the time of the trial by the Sanhedrin, they weren't allowed to have trials that run after sunset. And then there's the whole matter of handing Jesus over to the Romans. Not only did Jewish law forbid turning over a Jew to non-Jewish authorities for violations of Jewish law and then there's just turning Jesus over to the Romans in the first place. Per Jewish law if the Romans wanted to try to Jesus they had to arrest him themselves


Bro its widely accepted that ancient laws are studied partly in order to understand what people were up to. I.e. if the Jews had to make a law against it, people were doing it.
 
2013-02-21 08:59:08 PM

jjorsett: With two historically revisionist novels about the killings of John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln under his belt, Bill O'Reilly is now writing a book entitled "Killing Jesus"

What the hell do any of you non-Christians care? Don't read it, just like I, a non-paranoid non-conspiracy-nut, don't watch Oliver Stone movies.


If Christians would quit enforcing their beliefs on me, I would.  Sadly, here in Texas, they take the words from their imaginary friends and enact them into laws to inflict on all of us.
 
2013-02-21 09:07:53 PM
Here, let me sum up Bill's new book for you guys.
i137.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-21 09:12:04 PM

Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."

 ...

Well praise da LordTM Regd and pass da bull shiat!

Your argument is full of logical holes and inconsistencies cleverly camouflaged by the use of a couple of little appreciated scientific facts about heat and light.
 
2013-02-21 09:16:13 PM

kg2095: Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!

Here's why: "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."  ...

Well praise da LordTM Regd and pass da bull shiat!

Your argument is full of logical holes and inconsistencies cleverly camouflaged by the use of a couple of little appreciated scientific facts about heat and light.


This is the only evidence needed to prove that a loving, all powerful, benevolent God does not exist...

img29.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-21 09:26:54 PM

clane: clane:
you guys are so predictable

Isitoveryet:
I know someone who's even more predictable.

clane:
yea, keep getting your unbiased news from CNN


As someone who has watched CNN recently I can assure you that nobody gets any news, biased or otherwise, from CNN. It is utterly devoid of actual content that could be considered news.
 
2013-02-21 10:26:16 PM
Wow, if some "pointy-headed" University prof tried to give a book this title O'Reilly would launch a Jihad against him. It's okay if he uses it, though, cuz God is on his side and all that, so just ignore the blasphemous title.
 
2013-02-21 10:49:05 PM
Billo sure likes killing.
 
2013-02-21 10:51:32 PM

Maus III: Is God to blame?

YES!


TL;DR
 
2013-02-21 10:52:21 PM

halfof33: How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture.


And yet you still have an opinion
 
2013-02-21 10:55:33 PM

Ishkur: PsiChick: ..How does omniscience negate free will? We don't know, and can't, how a farking God would perceive time--maybe God just sees all possible paths within the laws of physics and we choose which one we go down. That's certainly free will.

Free will cannot exist in a Universe with an omniscient deity who can intervene at any time for any reason and leave no evidence.


Okay, let's say you're standing on a street and an ambulance comes by and hits a dog. You can  see the dog get hit. Does that mean you've  done anything about it? No; the dog is still farking dead, because you  saw, but didn't  act. That's the typical Christian\probably other religion take on God: Sees, doesn't act.

We still have free will, even if someone watches us jump out in front of an ambulance. The act of watching does not remove free will.
 
2013-02-21 10:59:17 PM

Uncle Tractor: Sinbox: Let's start this:

[i1197.photobucket.com image 463x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 384x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x480]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 410x565]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 424x609]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]


[i1197.photobucket.com image 640x426]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 242x638]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 503x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 427x640]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 620x878]

[i1197.photobucket.com image 532x919]

Straddling the NSFW line

Probably NSFworkplace viewing.

Same as above

As above...

...So below

Ditto.

SFW just TLFF (Too Large For Fark)

same as above

Yep.

Not unlike above.

Similar to above.

I've never witnessed frauds to move like that. (sfw; too large).

Also relieved that Mr. "you harbor overt paedophilic tendencies if you find K.U. in the least attractive" hasn't shown up yet (even though I know he will soon enough.".

Someone's posting in the wrong thread.


So what?
 
2013-02-21 11:09:24 PM

PsiChick: Okay, let's say you're standing on a street and an ambulance comes by and hits a dog. You can see the dog get hit. Does that mean you've done anything about it? No; the dog is still farking dead, because you saw, but didn't act. That's the typical Christian\probably other religion take on God: Sees, doesn't act.


dumb analogy. For all you know, God could have forced the ambulance to hit the dog (for whatever reason. Maybe the dog was rabid or something).

We have no way of knowing how an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all-seeing, all-powerful infallible entity does anything since he can do it and leave no trace. And since that's the case, we have no way of knowing whether our thoughts, our actions, our emotional states, our behaviors, our convictions or our beliefs are really our own or God manipulating us.

So long as He exists, we cannot assert with any confidence that we truly have Free Will.

PsiChick: The act of watching does not remove free will.


There is no evidence nor indication that he is watching since he can control everything, nothing and anything He wants while remaining outside of our awareness. How the hell are we supposed to know whether we have Free Will or not since His intervention is infinite?

Did I just write this post or did God make me write it? I do not have Free Will.
 
2013-02-21 11:21:28 PM

Ishkur: PsiChick: Okay, let's say you're standing on a street and an ambulance comes by and hits a dog. You can see the dog get hit. Does that mean you've done anything about it? No; the dog is still farking dead, because you saw, but didn't act. That's the typical Christian\probably other religion take on God: Sees, doesn't act.

dumb analogy. For all you know, God could have forced the ambulance to hit the dog (for whatever reason. Maybe the dog was rabid or something).

We have no way of knowing how an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all-seeing, all-powerful infallible entity does anything since he can do it and leave no trace. And since that's the case, we have no way of knowing whether our thoughts, our actions, our emotional states, our behaviors, our convictions or our beliefs are really our own or God manipulating us.

So long as He exists, we cannot assert with any confidence that we truly have Free Will.

PsiChick: The act of watching does not remove free will.

There is no evidence nor indication that he is watching since he can control everything, nothing and anything He wants while remaining outside of our awareness. How the hell are we supposed to know whether we have Free Will or not since His intervention is infinite?

Did I just write this post or did God make me write it? I do not have Free Will.


No, what you're arguing is that  you don't know if there's free will, not that God, or anyone else, being omnipotent negates free will, because  being omnipotent does not negate free will. They are  seperate things. Now, you might not  believe you have free will, but it's not a logical conclusion to say 'I watched the ambulance hit the dog; therefore the dog had no choice in getting hit'. It  would be logical to say 'I could have forced that dog to run in front of the ambulance; therefore no one knows if the dog intentionally ran in front or not', but at that point ambiguity is the only logical conclusion without evidence. Any other statement is a matter of faith.
 
2013-02-21 11:32:54 PM

PsiChick: No, what you're arguing is that you don't know if there's free will, not that God, or anyone else, being omnipotent negates free will, because being omnipotent does not negate free will. They are seperate things. Now, you might not believe you have free will, but it's not a logical conclusion to say 'I watched the ambulance hit the dog; therefore the dog had no choice in getting hit'. It would be logical to say 'I could have forced that dog to run in front of the ambulance; therefore no one knows if the dog intentionally ran in front or not', but at that point ambiguity is the only logical conclusion without evidence. Any other statement is a matter of faith.


Okay, if God is the arbiter of free will, let me ask the following:

Why give free will to a species in a Universe designed solely to take that free will away?
Why give free will to a species and then punish portions of that species for not executing their free will in whatever manner they like?
Why give free will to a species that tries as hard as possible to take free will away from itself?
Why give free will to a species where its ultimate fate is to have that free will taken away and then spend eternity in a location where free will is a nebulous concept?
Why give free will to a species that can neither comprehend nor compute the near-infinite numbers of variables of causality and chaos required to make an informed choice regarding exercising their free will?
Why give free will to a species in a Universe governed by the laws of cause and effect, where everything above the subatomic level is enslaved by antecedent activity?
Why give free will to a species that must define it through a process of perspective and relativism, and then interrupt that notion with an absolute standard that violates the whole concept of free will?
Why give free will to a species and then tell that species how everything is going to end thus negating the propensity for free will?

I restate, one more time, with extreme prejudice: Free will cannot exist in a Universe with an omniscient deity who can intervene at any time for any reason and leave no trace, so why give free will at all if we don't have free will and never did?


(oh, and the bonus assertion: If we don't have free will then neither does God. How can He if any choice He makes is always benevolent? That makes Him just as deterministic as the people He controls. God can only be Good and God can only do Good. If He were Evil or if He did Evil, He would not be God. He is a slave to His own conceit.)
 
2013-02-22 12:00:11 AM
It's about time someone wrote about this Jesus guy.
 
2013-02-22 06:09:46 AM

Superjoe: It's about time someone wrote about this Jesus guy.


Constantine would be proud.
 
2013-02-22 08:36:09 AM

ciberido: I drunk what: Isitoveryet: clane: you guys are so predictable

I know someone who's even more predictable.

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 250x328]

LOLZ vote democrat

I still, to this very day, wonder what the hell it is you DID drink.


www.dfwvapor.com

The Official drink of the IB, we all love this stuff, we even water our plants with it
 
2013-02-22 08:44:10 AM

guestguy: It's happened...IDW has finally snapped.  This is the closest I've seen to an outright tantrum from him.


IDW is no longer with us, i've come to clean up the mess he left behind

Ishkur: I think I may have had something to do with that.


it's so cute when random useless farks think they played a significant role in anything :D

but i do agree with everything these guys say^^

Farking Canuck: Ever since he announced he was quitting Fark.


that guy is gone, i assure you, if you read my profile you will see that we are completely different people

i'm on your side :D

101%

/i agree with everything you say
 
2013-02-22 08:57:07 AM

Bucky Katt: halfof33: How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture.

And yet you still have an opinion


I'm willing to trust the folks that run Ford's Theatre NHS.  They don't even want it in their gift shop because it's so inaccurate.
 
2013-02-22 09:16:51 AM

I drunk what: that guy is gone, i assure you, if you read my profile you will see that we are completely different people

i'm on your side :D

101%

/i agree with everything you say


Yeah ... but actual atheists don't agree with what you say on our behalf.

You take real atheist arguments and add in strawman positions like calling for the killing of all religious people.

I realize that this is just part of your disinformation campaign and this kind of dishonesty is common from religious people ... bearing false witness, etc. But I like to make sure people know where you really stand when you post that crap.
 
2013-02-22 09:25:27 AM

Farking Canuck: You take real atheist arguments and add in strawman positions like calling for the killing of all religious people.


it's the only logical and rational choice

are you suggesting that we allow religious people to continually thrive and pollute our utopian world with their stupidity?

haven't you been reading this site or not??

don't you remember all that BS we had to listen to back when Bevets, IDW, Kerpal32, etc.. used to post here?

do you want more people like that running our government and teaching in our schools?!  now who is off their meds???

if anyone is spreading disinformation, i'd say it's you
 
2013-02-22 09:29:03 AM

Ishkur: PsiChick: No, what you're arguing is that you don't know if there's free will, not that God, or anyone else, being omnipotent negates free will, because being omnipotent does not negate free will. They are seperate things. Now, you might not believe you have free will, but it's not a logical conclusion to say 'I watched the ambulance hit the dog; therefore the dog had no choice in getting hit'. It would be logical to say 'I could have forced that dog to run in front of the ambulance; therefore no one knows if the dog intentionally ran in front or not', but at that point ambiguity is the only logical conclusion without evidence. Any other statement is a matter of faith.

Okay, if God is the arbiter of free will, let me ask the following:

Why give free will to a species in a Universe designed solely to take that free will away?
Why give free will to a species and then punish portions of that species for not executing their free will in whatever manner they like?
Why give free will to a species that tries as hard as possible to take free will away from itself?
Why give free will to a species where its ultimate fate is to have that free will taken away and then spend eternity in a location where free will is a nebulous concept?
Why give free will to a species that can neither comprehend nor compute the near-infinite numbers of variables of causality and chaos required to make an informed choice regarding exercising their free will?
Why give free will to a species in a Universe governed by the laws of cause and effect, where everything above the subatomic level is enslaved by antecedent activity?
Why give free will to a species that must define it through a process of perspective and relativism, and then interrupt that notion with an absolute standard that violates the whole concept of free will?
Why give free will to a species and then tell that species how everything is going to end thus negating the propensity for free will?

I restate, one more time, with extre ...


you see? now with the Imbecile Squad gone, we are finally free to listen to enlightened people like Ishkur, who can free us from all that derpy stupidity from conservative christian fundy teatards

this guy is so awesome i'm tempted to worship him, and his big giant....... cauliflower :D

Free Will IS an illusion just like dreamy sam harris said, i want to have his children :o
 
2013-02-22 09:30:41 AM

ciberido: We all go through dark times.


on the contrary, I've seen the light

it was IDW who was blind

i'm ok you're ok
 
2013-02-22 09:46:50 AM

I drunk what: /i agree with everything you say


What if I said that you disagreed with me? Would you agree with that? Haha! Got you!
 
2013-02-22 10:04:44 AM

RobSeace: I drunk what: /i agree with everything you say

What if I said that you disagreed with me? Would you agree with that? Haha! Got you!


sorry pal, i only agree with the Intelligence Brigade, and you don't have a shiny plastic helmet :\

nice try

i won't possibly disagree agree with you, maybe
 
2013-02-22 10:17:33 AM

RobSeace: What if I said that you disagreed with me?

 Would you agree with that?

2.bp.blogspot.com

yes, because i'm a liar
 
2013-02-22 10:24:02 AM
When are they going to lock O'Reilly away in a mental institution where he belongs?
 
2013-02-22 11:38:53 AM

Bucky Katt: halfof33: How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture.

And yet you still have an opinion


"How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture."

I asked a question, you ignored it and bolded something else. Asking a question is In fact that is the opposite of expressing an opinion. Here's one though: in my opinion you are a bad person who should feel bad.
 
2013-02-22 12:12:24 PM
halfof33: Bucky Katt: halfof33: How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture.

And yet you still have an opinion

"How was Killing Lincoln historically revisionist?

I haven't read it, but I heard it was basically pop history with a few mistakes that didn't amount to a whole lot in the big picture."

I asked a question, you ignored it and bolded something else. Asking a question is In fact that is the opposite of expressing an opinion. Here's one though: in my opinion you are a bad person who should feel bad.

I read the book.  It was fine, nothing you haven't seen on the History channel or read already.  I learned a few things about the co-conspirators.  It came across like a history book written for high school students.  I'm glad it's a best seller since people can learn a bit of history and take their minds off Honey Boo Boo or the Kardashians for a moment.  I don't remember reading any revisionist history.  It was pretty straight forward and nothing stood out as "OMG WHAT...that really happened?!!!"
 
2013-02-22 12:39:32 PM

Bucky Katt: Billo sure likes killing.


The surviving members of George Tiller's family agree.
 
2013-02-22 04:34:14 PM

I drunk what: guestguy: It's happened...IDW has finally snapped.  This is the closest I've seen to an outright tantrum from him.

IDW is no longer with us, i've come to clean up the mess he left behind

Ishkur: I think I may have had something to do with that.

it's so cute when random useless farks think they played a significant role in anything :D

but i do agree with everything these guys say^^

Farking Canuck: Ever since he announced he was quitting Fark.

that guy is gone, i assure you, if you read my profile you will see that we are completely different people

i'm on your side :D

101%

/i agree with everything you say


i1237.photobucket.com

Oh, I see...so not at all a tantrum then?  My mistake.
 
2013-02-22 09:13:12 PM

Uncle Tractor: Sinbox: Let's start this:

[i1197.photobucket.com image 463x640]
...
[i1197.photobucket.com image 532x919]

Straddling the NSFW line

Probably NSFworkplace viewing.
...

I've never witnessed frauds to move like that. (sfw; too large).

Also relieved that Mr. "you harbor overt paedophilic tendencies if you find K.U. in the least attractive" hasn't shown up yet (even though I know he will soon enough.".

Someone's posting in the wrong thread.

[i560.photobucket.com image 420x310]



Are you seriously objecting?
 
2013-02-23 07:03:04 AM

Cyber_Junk: Are you seriously objecting?


Nope. However, this is probably the thread he (she?) was intending to post in.
 
Displayed 248 of 248 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report