Sick. This kid needs major therapy to cure his mental disorder. Christianity is a CHOICE!

Is it just me or is this kid kind of a coont?

I just want my normal gay son back!!

lulz

Oldie but a goodie.

And this one's about a month old, but it was the last one that had me laughing hysterically.

The Onion Freely and Happily Give It's Employees' Passwords to China
 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-freely-and-happily-gives- it s-employees-p,31102/

This link is ancient history, but it's definitely in the Onion All-time Greatest, so I can't complain.

/quick, someone submit Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock

Mithiwithi: Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

I know, right?  He has no idea what thread count the Emperor's new clothes are!

<3 Love this point.

I do respect Somacandra for at least admitting that Hitchens, Dawkins, and maybe even Maher  would pass such a course. High praise.

The idea that religion Hitchens did not engage with religion as phenomena is just incorrect. Most of his arguments were not about the disproof of god, but instead he turned an eye of criticism towards that phenomena you say he never addressed. The same could be said of most anti religious advocates, at the end of the day we don't really care about god, because god is, from our perspective, a non issue. It is that lived phenomena of religion that is problematic, and the point.

I don't mind you disagreeing with the arguments, but please don't misrepresent them.

On a lighter note does anyone else love when Christians use "that argument is so old 100 years come on get with the times man" as a criticism?

Coming out to your parents as soon as you know is one of the coolest things you can ever do for your life and for theirs.

thread needs more Christian persecution.







Ah. Now it feels like home again. My black, satanic heart is warmed once more.

Paris1127: Jan 12, 2010

/just sayin'
//could've sworn the article is even older than that

This is at least the second time I've seen this here.

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

*Shrug*  Maybe.
But I don't really see that, or the article you linked,  as being particularly relevant.
Dawkins does not, in general, even try to engage religion as a sociological construct, and for the purposes of what he is trying to do that is perfectly fine.  He isn't being indiscriminately anti-religious based on his own definition of what a religion is, he is engaging very specific facets of their belief systems.  Specifically, if a religion makes a supernatural claim about the way that the universe actually works, those are the things he is arguing with.  If he is addressing only specific types of claims, it doesn't matter how much he does or doesn't know about the cultural construct that is making them.  That is a central pillar of science -- the hypothesis is separate from the person (or organization) making the claim.

To test and debate the concept of God or gods and the claims made about them does not require that he know anything about the history of religion or even the abstract philosophical underpinnings, he only has to know what the logical consequences of those beliefs are and how they relate to the real world that we see around us.  To claim that he doesn't have any business talking about religion just because he doesn't have training in the Religious philosophical hand-waving is just elitist academic masturbation.

Gawdzila: To claim that he doesn't have any business talking about religion just because he doesn't have training in the Religious philosophical hand-waving is just elitist academic masturbation.

I agree, except in the sense that you are implying masturbation is bad.

KrispyKritter:
// i would get FARK tattooed right on my big fat stinky hairy man ass, but then i'd have to show it to you.

That sounds like a Bort challenge gone way too far. Prolly before your time, but still. I'll give 20 bucks to
doctors without borders if you do it and prove it .

That was fabulous

Hey, Focus on the Family -- you guys need to pay attention to this one! This is a real news article! Written about a real person with real anxieties. You need to issue a press release, and offer support to the young man in his time of crisis! I'm serious! This is NO JOKE!!!!

i cant wait to see how this plays out on Literally Unbelievable.

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

A competently taught freshman religious studies course generally provides enough information to tear apart the diseased aspects of religion - that is, the idea of a perfect divine revealed truth.

kid_icarus: I wonder what  thatreparative therapy would look like?

Gay away the Pray?

Gay Buddha embraces the all.



(The all is your penis.)

If my son came out an told me he was a right-wing fundamentalist christian, I would disown him.
It's filthy, unhealthy, and un-American!!

ModernLuddite: (The all is your penis.)

plus eleventy. well played

alienated: KrispyKritter:
// i would get FARK tattooed right on my big fat stinky hairy man ass, but then i'd have to show it to you.

That sounds like a Bort challenge gone way too far. Prolly before your time, but still. I'll give 20 bucks to
doctors without borders if you do it and prove it .

Put me down for twenty.

VH

and here i am, a Christian, wondering if i'm gay

The Flexecutioner: i cant wait to see how this plays out on Literally Unbelievable.

Came to say this.

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

Right, Maher has a degree in history from Cornell, but a C is all he'd be able to muster at the all-world academic powerhouse that is TCU (where Plate is tenured).

Somacandra: But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Oh please, "religious studies theory or methods", theories need evidence and testability neither of which apply to relicion which seems to consist of "read an old book, assume it is true and pull some ideas out of your butt". As far as I can see that's all it takes to be a religious "expert".