Login or register

x

FunnyJunk Notification

church and school

MuahahaOfLore

Favorite Comment

✖ Prev Top Next Comment

church and school. Watson Heston late 19th century. KICK and may Religion out of Amen' ca' s Public Schools . . . KEEP CHURCH AND STATE FOREVER SEPARATE A A A A

Watson Heston late 19th century

KICK and may Religion out of Amen' ca' s Public Schools . . .
KEEP CHURCH AND STATE FOREVER SEPARATE
A A A A A A UNCLE SAM PLEASE DO THIS? A A A A A A

...

+637

Views:	22832
Favorited:	26
Submitted:	12/30/2015

Share On Facebook

submit to reddit

+Favorite Subscribe to MuahahaOfLore

Comments(183):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs

[ 183 comments ]

Anonymous comments allowed.

180 comments displayed.

-46

#2 - internetexplain (12/31/2015) [-]

You wouldn't have a problem with a lack of secularism , if you actually taught the bible proper in school , in which Jesus specifically states , that God and any King , have 0 relation to each other and should never be brought together either, because that would be blasphemy.

+1

#110 to #2 - captainprincess ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

but also because that is separation of church and state

+2

#175 to #110 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

I don't think you realize that "separation of church and state" was never an intention of the framers of the constitution. When they said that the government shall make no law honoring a religion, they meant that they did not want a theocracy to form, as America was to be a land where religious practice was not scrutinized by the government. That said they did not intent for church and state to be completely separate, because ones church is more often then not, part of their life. It affects their decisions, and keeps many individuals moral. They did not intend for people to throw their religion away when working for government, and schools, which were not public, where not any different. The phrase "separation of Church and state" was not ever spoken at the constitutional convention, but was made up by a libtard justice in the 1900's

Besides, let's be real, we all know you don't' give a **** , you and your ilk just want Christianity to not be taught in schools, Seeing as there are multiple schools on the east coast that have taken up teaching Islam, having kids write "Muhammad is a prophet of Allah" under the guise of learning a different culture. This gets no media coverage what so ever, yet a group of kids a Wyoming school have group prayer, and they're said to forcing their religion on others and threatened with expulsion, for saying a prayer to bless their food before eating, in a place where no one is forced to sit and watch it. in a state that is actually very religious and very christian.

tl;dr - you and every one who keeps running their mouth about church and state don't' know the history, don't' know what your talking about ,and are largely ******* hypocrites of the highest order who just have some vendetta against Christians.

0

#177 to #175 - captainprincess ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Or maybe we just dont want the church involved in state matters, and we take the phrase to mean what it says instead of delving into some assumptions about the psychology of people long dead, out of some desperate need to have the bibble in schools

+2

#64 to #2 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

you poor delusional cunt.

+3

#98 to #2 - uglychino (12/31/2015) [-]

My dude, you can't be religious on this site. Too many Euros with opinions about how people are and how they should be. Man has always believed in men for thousands of years and because of that we're more gullible and more easily tricked then a mouse in a maze with fake processed cheese.

+2

#117 to #98 - captainprincess ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Europe is a religious place

It contains the Catholic capital, and the nations surrounding italy have their considerably religious proportions, it's largely a hub for this part of the world
Then if you count the UK as a part of Europe which the union does, they have their own personal religion, The Church of England, which has been around since Henry VIII established it to loosen the vatican's grip on england
Then if yo're counting that region there's also ireland, the catholic hub of the area, and this being one of the reasons behind the irish and english fighting

Not that any american has ever told people how they should live
no that's never happened

No, what you can't be on here is a selfrighteous doucehbag
THAT will get you called out

-2

#134 to #117 - alucardhell ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

That is true, but in almost every nation except the Vatican, there is a clear distinction between religion and the state. Religious marriages in France for example aren't considered legally binding by the state. You have to go before a judge and get a civil union, the religious marriage is completely superficial. (unlike in the US where church officials can sign marriage certificates making them legally binding.)

Now personally, I think religion is an outdated coping mechanism for death that should eventually disappear. Sadly, i don't think that will happen because most people don't seem capable of functioning with the thought that their isn't another life after this one.

-1

#142 to #134 - captainprincess ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Yes there is a clear distinction
And, as far as Im aware, that is a good thing

+3

#66 to #2 - merrrione ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

i dont know why you're getting thumbed down man.

+7

#77 to #2 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Frankly warshipping a book of storys to give moral to a society that doesnt need the book already based off its teaching... Isnt needed.
Thats all the bible is. A bunch of storys that took place in parts and locations in the middle east edited to help children to understand that steeling is wrong, dont kill your neighbor. Ect.

All religous books say this. It is very dishonorable to steel says the Koran (think thats how u spell it). Its not untill things get deeply in depth do these books start spouting personal propagandic bullship "dont lie with another man" or "when the fires of hell arise, so will Alah to save us from the jews". Ect. Like wtf.

More blood has been spilled in the name of religion then all other reason wars combined.

Lets grow up. Uphold what our founding fathers founded this country for... One of those reasons is to keep religion the **** out of politics.

+92

#9 to #2 - Zaxplab (12/31/2015) [-]

I, don't, think, that, justifies, teaching, the, bible, as, fact, in, public, schools.

-18

#29 to #9 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

We read To Kill a Mockingbird in school and it was never implied to be fact.

+32

#40 to #29 - hackhazardly (12/31/2015) [-]

Well, To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel.

-13

#58 to #40 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

As is, i believe the bible. It is a literary work, or novel, whether you take it as holy or not.

+27

#63 to #58 - greyblade (12/31/2015) [-]

true, but you tell people that to kill a mockingbird is fiction, no-one bats an eye

tell people that the bible's fiction, everyone loses their minds.

+5

#67 to #63 - stefanovic (12/31/2015) [-]

I believe this is the gif you are looking for

0

#79 to #67 - greyblade (12/31/2015) [-]

thank you kindly.

+8

#71 to #58 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

the Bible is not a novel to those who believe it's true

+1

#119 to #71 - captainprincess ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

And neither is Harry Potter

The funniest part is that there's a lot of overlap between believes in the bible and believes in harry potter

+2

#38 to #29 - Zaxplab (12/31/2015) [-]

okay?

+81

#3 to #2 - lamarsmithgot (12/31/2015) [-]

the bible specifically states a lot of things that people can't be bothered to acknowledge

0

#4 to #3 - maxattax (12/31/2015) [-]

Example?

+3

#5 to #4 - lamarsmithgot (12/31/2015) [-]

Leviticus 19:19

+23

#6 to #5 - maxattax (12/31/2015) [-]

Actually that verse spoke specifically of the mixing of woolen and flaxen threads. The reason that it was forbidden to do so was because wool and linen were reserved for the priest's garments. You have to understand when reading Leviticus and other laws of the old testament that not all laws were based on morals, but some were for ceremony, and others simply for sanitation. Like Deuteronomy 23:12-14 which says to, "Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself," and to, "dig a hole and cover up your excrement." Obviously, this command was not to be implemented into one's moral compass, but to prevent the spread of disease.

+18

#43 to #6 - badgoodass (12/31/2015) [-]

TL;DR during their trip from Egypt Jews had designated ******** holes

-2

#113 to #6 - didactus ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Leviticus 20:13
Make that justifiable.

+4

#124 to #113 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

In the old testament, intercourse with another man was considered a sin, and as it was a sin that was fully of one's choice, it was an abomination to the gift of life that God gave all things. There are many things in the old testament that were punishable by death, but since the new testament and Jesus's fulfillment of the old laws, these things should now be understood rather than literally followed.

Now comes the controversy. Why was it a sin? That is the question that determines whether a church accepts homosexuality or forbids it. Many argue that the sin is that a man and woman are the perfect form of relationship because of the balance of differences. Others might say it was for STDs, or that it was an act of adultery. It is the cause of much controversy, so I won't attempt to claim what is correct.

-1

#118 to #113 - viscerys ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

You talk like I'm supposed to know what that is.

-1

#121 to #118 - didactus ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Kill gays, no exceptions.
You are not morally responsible for the murder of them.
Your crime lies on their own hands.

-1

#122 to #121 - viscerys ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Well ain't that some **** .

-1

#100 to #6 - goddamnwizard (12/31/2015) [-]

What about Deuteronomy 25:11-12? 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity

And yet every time I've said to a Christian that the bible is violent just like the Quaran, they'll always tell me I'm wrong.

+1

#108 to #100 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

The old testament actually sets up the "eye for an eye" principle to be a monetary thing. Many phrases you find, such as cutting off her hand, are just that: phrases.

This passage is meant to be read so that the woman pays a monetary fine, no matter her financial situation. That would be the "show her no pity" part.

Many laws and sections of the bible use phrases that need context. Such a large collection of works written so long ago and in many different times needs context, hence the writing of many commentaries that give cultural and literary context.

-2

#130 to #108 - goddamnwizard (12/31/2015) [-]

Yeah, no, it just means to cut off her hand. The bible is typically pretty literal, and people like you have this habit of trying to convince others that it doesn't actually mean what it says, despite being written there for everyone to see. This was a book meant for even the lowliest of people, so it wouldn't have minced words, or set up an intricate system of analogies and turns of phrase. It states what it means frankly, and what it means is cut off her hand. Try to defend it all you want, but your book is the exact same thing as the one the terrorists read. You just don't follow yours as devoutly.

+1

#135 to #130 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

It was a phrase. Pure and simple. It is people like you who do not allow for civilized discussion. Such an old and multi-era book with many cultures and genres and contexts should not be taken lightly and fully literal. Revelations is a perfect example. Lamps and desks and dragons? Imagery and symbolism, almost no literal portrayals.

Just because you don't understand the context and the use of phrases and consistent messages doesn't mean it is all literal.

Next time you try to diss a religion, please try not to get dunked on.

-1

#146 to #135 - goddamnwizard (12/31/2015) [-]

So you tell me it's a phrase but provide no evidence to that claim. I'm expected to believe it's a phrase just because you say it is. How about that context you spoke of? Surely there's gotta be some you can provide that would prove to me it's a phrase rather than literal. And again, a book intended for the common man to learn moral lessons from wouldn't have been flooded with complex symbolism.

+1

#154 to #146 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

www.eternalgod.org/q-a-13738/

Unfortunately I do not have a web version of any full commentaries of leviticus. There are several books if you'd like to go read one.

As stated previously, there are established points in the old testament referring to the "eye for an eye" principle as monetary, not corporal punishment. This example of "cutting off the womans hand" is no different. What would be the point in cutting off her hand?

There are also other places in the bible that do not literally mean to cut off one's hand. Matthew 5:30 states "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." This is not literal, but means that if something is a source for sin in your life, remove it. Such as a friend who steals. If this friend pressures you into such crimes, remove him as a friend. It is better to lose that friend than lose yourself to crime.

The bible was not written specifically for the common man, but was a written collection of books, many often used by elders to teach, not to just hand out. The first big wave of common use is after Martin Luther translates his bible and inadvertently starts the Protestant church. He does not rewrite it to be understood by common man, but to be read by him for the sake of discussion. He took issue with the idea that only the heads of the church understood the latin bibles of the time, and sought to change that.

Anything else, my poorly informed fellow?

0

#161 to #154 - goddamnwizard (12/31/2015) [-]

ah. I see I was wrong. I'd say good debate but if I'm honest, I wasn't making solid arguments in the first place. You're much more well informed on this topic than me. Have a good day then

0

#163 to #161 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

Thank you for understanding and keeping along. I can definitely understand frustration with people who cherry pick.

I make sure that my beliefs are reasonable and supportable, otherwise I would not believe them. Have a good day.

-1

#82 to #6 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Does this also go for Deuteronomy 21:18-21?

+1

#115 to #82 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

Yes, actually. In such a case, death and stoning was meant to rid the tribes of evil people, for by that point the parents would have tried all they could and the son would be lost in his evil ways, so they would bring him to the elders for his punishment.

Now we can look and understand the reason for this law and we have other means in place to take care of such an individual, hence a lack of need for stoning. Also, Jesus's death means that the son's sins are forgiven, which means he does not require death but rehabilitation.

+1

#10 to #5 - thegoblingamer (12/31/2015) [-]

Jesus said Leviticus was a total gaywad.

-21

#7 to #3 - internetexplain (12/31/2015) [-]

the Old testament , does not count as the bible , why don't people understand that?

The only reason christians kept the Old testament in there , was as reference material on what exactly changes in the New testament , basically to say people " this is what we used to believe , that's some top tier ******** right there innit? Read this instead m8 , this is what we believe now , Bible 2.0 if you will "

+13

#24 to #7 - anonmynous (12/31/2015) [-]

And now we have quantum mechanics and we can look at the new testament as a reference and say: "This is what we used to believe"

+6

#12 to #7 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Old Testament definitely counts as part of the Bible. There are plenty of things that still apply to Christians. I do agree that things in the Old Testament are no longer applied because of Jesus, but the entire is Old Testament was not suddenly made null and void because of Jesus.

0

#68 to #12 - theseareletters (12/31/2015) [-]

Do the 10 commandments apply?

0

#84 to #68 - zzzanzitron (12/31/2015) [-]

Dud, those laws still apply note you still can't kill or steal a wife without getting into trouble
Not sure what Jesus said about this but I'm sure someone knows better

+1

#90 to #84 - theseareletters (12/31/2015) [-]

This is what he said:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

TL;DR, The whole Old Testimate applies

0

#125 to #90 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

His meaning in this was to say he didn't come to rid of them, but to give them purpose.

Now we can look and understand the reason for the laws and learn and take from that, having been forgiven of the sins which would break such laws.

So in a sense, everything applies, but not directly. One should learn from the old laws and the reasons they were as they were.

0

#128 to #125 - theseareletters (12/31/2015) [-]

"His meaning in this was to say he didn't come to rid of them, but to give them purpose"

So, you agree that all the old laws apply.

+1

#133 to #128 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

If he got rid of them we wouldn't need to think about them. He gave them purpose, meaning we should keep them in mind and why they were laws in the first place.

Laws concerning sanitary or health issues should be applied as necessary. We can eat pork because we can cook it and cure it. Same with shellfish and other things.

The laws apply but not in the same way.

0

#160 to #133 - theseareletters (12/31/2015) [-]

show me how you come to the conclusion of your interpretation. it makes no sense.

+1

#162 to #160 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

Firstly, I should say it is not my interpretation, but what I was taught. In a class, with referencial textbooks and other resources and understandings.

While I wish I could put it so simply, it is a matter of context and understanding Jesus's message. I'm no great teacher, because I'm no expert at simple explanation of less simple things, but there are many who know more about the subject.

Here is my attempt: The Law and the Prophets refers to the old testament itself and its teachings. His statement of "I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" would not be necessary if he meant you should treat them the same.

Fulfillment of these teachings means fulfilling their purpose. When Jesus saved us from our sins, he removed the need for smiting and the like, removing the necessity of some of the laws of the old testament.

Many laws were for health, sanitary reasons, or purely ceremonial, such as the mixed fabrics one mentioned in a another comment here. Because he is fulfilling the purpose of these laws, they are no longer directly necessary, but rather for understanding why they were necessary.

He goes on to speak mentioning that anyone thinking themselves more righteous than the teachers of these laws is surely condemned. This is to say that you should not hold yourself above these laws, but understand them. If we ignore the laws, we are doomed. But if we understand the laws and keep them and their ideas then we can properly use them rather than blindly follow them.

Such examples would be that of pork, that of certain rules of women during menstruation, etc.

These laws were meant for their people, but as they are in the Laws and the Prophets, they are meant to be referred to and understood. Jesus came with a new covenant, but he does not say to ignore the old.

I hope his helps.

0

#172 to #162 - theseareletters (12/31/2015) [-]

not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished

none of the laws change

0

#178 to #172 - darrenblackfox (12/31/2015) [-]

They don't change. But we don't necessarily abide by them in the same way. Otherwise some of Jesus's teachings would contradict the old laws. Jesus himself works on a sunday, then when criticized by the pharisees, explains why that commandment was the way it was.

They don't change, and they aren't ignored. It is also hard to have a clear english translation that carries the same weight and meaning as the original text, so many of the original greek and hebrew words are translated differently, and some idioms and phrases become lost in context.

Jesus himself was "the Word" but he bore no literature or writing on his skin. There is a lot of symbolism and phrases meant to convey something beyond bare words, so I would say to keep that in mind. If you need to reference a specific passage or book, there are plenty of well written commentaries for each book, and they typically have well cited sources as well.

I hope I've helped.

0

#173 to #172 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

I believe you're correct that none of the laws change, meaning that its still bad to break them but that with Jesus being strung up and all that god realized that we'd break them no matter what, because that's just how we are, hence the whole being forgiven thing. I think it'd be pretty silly to punish someone for something they can't control.

0

#73 to #7 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Our original Holy Book was **** . So we made this NEW Holy Book.

It's totally not going to turn out to be full of **** like our last super novel... right?

0

#103 to #7 - goddamnwizard (12/31/2015) [-]

Funny, considering Christians still will use an Old Testament passage to justify their hatred of homosexuality.

-1

#159 to #103 - internetexplain (12/31/2015) [-]

yes and they're about as smart as you circlejerking neckbeards to be honest.

+2

#164 to #159 - goddamnwizard (12/31/2015) [-]

"Hurr, you have something negative to say about Christianity?! Yurr a neckbeard!"

How about take your unoriginal insults back to Reddit?

-2

#176 to #164 - internetexplain (12/31/2015) [-]

precisely that kind of comment is what makes me call you a neckbeard.

It's not your opinion , it's that you're being a cunt.

+105

#13 - superiorcheerio (12/31/2015) [-]

One thing that really bugs me is how some people think that separation between church and state means YOU CANT EVEN MENTION RELIGION IN SCHOOLS. No, dumbass, it means you can't force students to practice religion or teach religion as fact.

0

#21 to #13 - anonmynous (12/31/2015) [-]

So if we shouldn't say that religion is a fact then why the hell would we ever bring it up in schools?

+24

#23 to #21 - superiorcheerio (12/31/2015) [-]

There are classes that teach about what various religions believe. They don't present it as fact, just what others may believe.

+24

#25 to #23 - anonmynous (12/31/2015) [-]

As a historical or social studies class that seems perfectly reasonable. But we both know that's not what this cartoon is referring to.

+4

#26 to #25 - superiorcheerio (12/31/2015) [-]

I suppose so...

+4

#80 to #21 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

To make people aware of the different cultures you ignorant mongrel.

+5

#36 to #21 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Education about people's beliefs is kinda important...

+31

#14 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Yes, but we should also keep atheism / Islam out of school as well. Meaning the teacher doesn't get the right to bash religion openly in a classroom and kids don't have to listen to how their lifestyles are haram/halal.

Bring on the red, you all know i'm right.

+3

#91 to #14 - firesky (12/31/2015) [-]

Teach ethics and with it a overview of the bigger religions in historical aspect and their major characteristics and differences to improve mutual understanding.

+33

#37 to #14 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

You can't "teach" atheism, all children are born atheists. It's like dyeing your hair bald.

And islam isn't allowed either...

+7

#49 to #37 - masterboll (12/31/2015) [-]

correction:
children arent born rejecting theism, all children are born without knowledge of theism

+3

#116 to #49 - didactus ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Children are born atheist.
Atheism means lack of belief.
A-non
Theism-Belief

0

#170 to #116 - mollike (12/31/2015) [-]

lack of belief meaning you know what believing is and then not giving a **** about it.. You born without the knowledge is right

0

#180 to #170 - didactus ONLINE (01/01/2016) [-]

I don't need to know what a car is to be classified as car-less if I don't own a car.

0

#182 to #180 - mollike (01/01/2016) [-]

Well at the same time just cause you haven't eaten **** doesn't mean it doesn't exist, not saying god exist but the possibility of it

-2

#52 to #49 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Except no one would ever come to the conclusion that sky wizards did it on their own.

-2

#55 to #52 - masterboll (12/31/2015) [-]

we're talking about theism and children, not your hallucinations

-1

#105 to #55 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

>implying theism isn't just a combination of denial and insanity.

-1

#179 to #105 - masterboll (01/01/2016) [-]

>>implying atheism isn't just a combination of strawmen and Asperger's

0

#181 to #179 - anon (01/01/2016) [-]

Right. That's exactly what denial sounds like.

0

#152 to #52 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Clearly somebody came to that conclusion on their own, or else religion wouldn't exist at all.

0

#156 to #152 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Most likely one person convinced another person of it for prophet.

"Hey guys I was up on the mountain and this voice came down and told me it was the creator of everything"
"What did they want"
"Uh... he said he needed a sacrifice of a bull every week. So just drag a cow up the mountain and leave it there, I'll do the rest."

-8

#48 to #37 - dehumanizer (12/31/2015) [-]

*all autistic children are born atheists

there i fixed it for you

-1

#75 to #37 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Yea... you kind of have to know about Theism before you can become Atheist. It's not a belief, it's a disregarding of concepts created by Theism.

It's like shadows. You can't have a shadow without some kind of light. You can't NOT believe in a God if nobody ever heard of God to begin with.

+2

#104 to #75 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

If you don't believe in god then you do in fact disbelieve.

0

#107 to #104 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

How can I disbelieve in God if I had never heard of God?

My point is that a lack of knowing of God is not Atheism. Atheism is knowing about religion and God and choosing not to believe. I personally choose not to believe because there's no evidence, but some don't believe just because it's not the 'real' God.

Nobody is 'born Atheist' they are born ignorant or the topic. You wouldn't expect a newborn to know anything about physics but does that mean they don't believe in gravity?

0

#184 to #107 - ninjaroo ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]

The prefix "a" means "lack of", so a-theism means lack of theism. You do indeed lack theism if you haven't heard of the concept.

This is a hot debate in some circles, basically made up of one side going "nuh uh, but the dictionary!" and the other side going "nuh uh, but etymology and usage!"

0

#112 to #107 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

How can you disbelieve in the tooth fairy if you have never heard of it? Exactly, because it's ridiculous.

Well that's just as stupid. If nothing indicates the existence of a god then there's no sound reason to delude yourself.

You don't "believe" in gravity; you either understand the concept or you don't.

0

#120 to #112 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

How do you know the tooth fairy is ridiculous without knowing what the tooth fairy is? Imagine walking up to a tribesman in the Amazon who has never had outside influence. You ask "Do you believe in the tooth fairy?" their answer will either be "What the hell is a tooth fairy" or "I have no idea what you are saying. I don't speak English"

Yea I agree. That's why I don't delude myself, but billions of other people still do it and would disagree with both of us on that account.

The only reason you say that now is because we have quantifiable evidence right now about gravity so we know it's a fact. It exists. Maybe we create a god-measuring device in the year 3016 and then it becomes a matter of "you either understand God or you don't" but that still doesn't mean you can deny the existence of something you never knew about. You just didn't know about it.

0

#123 to #120 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

And in what way does that not indicate a lack of belief to you?

Well they're deluded, so their opinion hardly matters.

One of god's innate properties is being undetectable...
But anyway at the point we actually detect some sort of god I will ask them why they're such a cunt. Up until that point anyone who believes without evidence is wrong. If you believed in gravity without evidence you would also be wrong.

0

#127 to #123 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

I personally think just because someone is ignorant of a topic doesn't mean they chose not to believe in it, but that's my opinion. Sure obviously they have no belief because they've never heard of God, but that's from a position of ignorance and I don't find much meaning in that opinion then. It's like if I asked a celibate nun how sex is. Her opinion is pretty much worthless.

Pretty much what I said above except replace self-delusion with ignorance.

Yes, in a broad grouping they would be Atheists, the same way I would have not believed in Ryan Gosling had I grown up in the Amazon.

0

#131 to #127 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Everyone who believes in god does so from ignorance. No one comes to faith through careful reasoning, nor does a child innately believe.

You would not have known about ryan gosling, but if someone told you there was a guy called ryan gosling there's no reason to think it was made up. Magical people in the sky, on the other hand, is a bit of a stretch.

0

#138 to #131 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Although the point should be made that obviously the burden of proof lies with the one MAKING the claims.

0

#140 to #138 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

That would be them.

0

#145 to #140 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Yea obviously. I just figured I should add that since I ended on 'we will never DISPROVE God' but I didn't mention that it isn't our responsibility to disprove something. It's their responsibility to prove it otherwise everyone can just walk around making wild claims with no evidence.

By the way I am a billionaire and I own many cars and my own island. **** you, prove I don't.

0

#149 to #145 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Well that's it, until I am provided with sound evidence to the contrary I will continue to disregard religion's claims.

0

#136 to #131 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

To us it's a stretch. Not to people who actually believe. They just turn around and say "you think a big explosion happened trillions of years ago and that all happened to fall perfectly in to place to create humanity and life on Earth etc? That's a bit of a stretch. Makes more sense if some dude made it all to plan"

Then they will just say that their book is evidence and "I've felt God's presence so I know he/she/it is real" to which we just say "Got any evidence?" and then they can say God cannot be measured and exists outside the realm of physical limitations and reality" then the cycle continues.

It's one of those never ending arguments because we will never be able to DISPROVE God.

0

#139 to #136 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Well the thing is that I do not "believe", I understand, and so their disbelief has no effect on reality. Many crazy people also hear voices in their heads.

Wow, so you mean to tell me it's going to be difficult to get rid of? Well me might as well not bother.

BURDEN OF PROOF

0

#148 to #139 - kibuza ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

That 3rd part was exactly why I made that 2nd reply haha. I knew it was coming.

+43

#15 to #14 - MuahahaOfLore [OP](12/31/2015) [-]

how do you teach atheism?

telling kids intelligent design is stupid?

+1

#155 to #15 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Simple: you teach them never to blindly believe things that people tell them, and to question everything. Critical thinking is the enemy of faith.

-8

#45 to #15 - masterboll (12/31/2015) [-]

you teach atheism by systematically programming the students into autism

you teach atheism by systematically programming the students into autism

-16

#16 to #15 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

This is what pisses me off about atheists.

science =/= atheism

end of story.

+17

#17 to #16 - MuahahaOfLore [OP](12/31/2015) [-]

intelligent design = Christianity
anti intelligent design = Atheism or satanism or something?

and you didn't answer my question

+3

#19 to #17 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

I know i'm super pissed but come on, what is this **** ? Why are people okay with pushing liberal/conservative or [insert world views] onto their kids?

Let them actually be kids, at least until they're 13? If people want to push their worldviews onto their kids, let them. I don't feel like having a mass-brainwashed population graduating from every high school. It's one of the things that should be considered a violation of human rights. Let them learn just the hard facts, just the stuff that we know for sure, and let the kids grow up and finish the narrative on their own.

-2

#18 to #17 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

A teacher isn't supposed to share their personal beliefs.

And atheism is taught mostly by bashing/mocking the opposing sides. Most of you would rather see me type that atheism is taught by teaching science, but that is simply not true. Atheism is nothing but strong skepticism of religious teaching, so it is spread by sharing opposing views to the religion, or the majority of the time, just mocking the opposing views.

+16

#20 to #18 - anonmynous (12/31/2015) [-]

I went to a religious school and am now atheist. That was my own decision based on my scientific understanding so, yes, in a way teaching science is teaching atheism. But that's a good thing. I was presented both sides and came to my own decision and let me tell you religion does far more brainwashing than atheism. In science class I could ask all the questions I wanted, in CCD you would just get slapped.

+2

#47 to #18 - rakogoki (12/31/2015) [-]

i thought the default position you are born in was atheism. like to be theistic you first gotta learn about the concept of a deity, so you dont really teach atheism you just leave it or something.

0

#22 to #18 - MuahahaOfLore [OP](12/31/2015) [-]

so is anti intelligent design athiest? at least someone will ask.

-3

#31 to #22 - wrpen (12/31/2015) [-]

Short answer, no.

0

#32 to #31 - MuahahaOfLore [OP](12/31/2015) [-]

I being facetious talking to anon because he said something stupid.

-3

#33 to #32 - wrpen (12/31/2015) [-]

Good, admitting you have a problem is the first step to overcoming it

+1

#35 to #33 - MuahahaOfLore [OP](12/31/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

-1

#39 to #18 - popeflatus (12/31/2015) [-]

Atheism is the rational position because all it means is that "I don't believe in any gods". This is just the same as not believing in the Yeti, Loch Ness Monster, fairies and the Boogeyman due to there being zero evidence for them and a giant mountain of evidence as to why they are just made up.

+2

#50 to #39 - rakogoki (12/31/2015) [-]

i think this makes the most sense out of it.

i think this makes the most sense out of it.

+1

#54 to #50 - bendingtimeisgood ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Agnostic atheist mustard rice.

0

#56 to #54 - rakogoki (12/31/2015) [-]

there are times when gnostic atheism is warranted though, like "god is a square circle" or anything with omni- in it.
then gnostic theism can sometimes be correct like when someone gets all witty e.g "god is cheese", like you cant deny cheese exists.
semantics are a bitch.

0

#57 to #56 - bendingtimeisgood ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

I know there are definite answers to specific questions like that, but that's just where I'd align myself on the whole.

-1

#78 to #17 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

nah intelligent design= the stuff that happened to make things was intentional

the belief against intelligent design is that the stuff that happened to make things was random.

That is the real skeleton difference. That is about it to be honest.

0

#158 to #78 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Nothing is random.

0

#106 to #16 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Except all of science indicates that there is no god.

0

#137 to #106 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Well, technically all of science hasn't proven anything either way.

0

#141 to #137 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Well it has, I mean we're certain about how certain chemicals interact. We know the answers to a lot of questions, we just don't know the answer to everything.

0

#143 to #141 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Haha whoops, that came out wrong. I meant it hasn't proven anything about God either way.

0

#147 to #143 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

And it never will, because the religious apologists move the goalposts. God went from on a mountain to in the sky to being ethereal because people tried to disprove it.

0

#150 to #147 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Yes, because all religions in the world believe the same exact thing. Not all religions were Hellenic polytheism.

0

#151 to #150 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

I was actually thinking more about the abrahamic faiths, of which I am most familiar.

0

#153 to #151 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Well what of all the other religions out there?

And I don't think the Abrahamic religions ever actually believe that God lived on a mountain.

+1

#157 to #153 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

The last people to believe that would have lived about 3 thousand or so years ago.

Well Buddhism doesn't really have a god to speak of.
Hinduism I'm not overly familiar with, but as far as I recall it's more abstract about its deities.
I know pretty much nothing about Sikhism or Jainism except that they exist. Wicca is ******* stupid, as is revived paganism.

A notable difference is that these groups aren't actively trying to put hurdles in front of discovery.

0

#166 to #157 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Then it's not a case of "religious apologists" moving the goalposts, is it? It's just a religion evolving, as they tend to do.

Buddhism may not have the concept of a "god" as most people think, but there are still plenty of mythological and supernatural elements. Especially in certain branches of Buddhism.
I'm not overly familiar with Hinduism either, but from what I do know it's less a set of interconnected and related beliefs that stem from ancient Indian religion and less a unified religion of any sorts.

Neither are the Abrahamic religions (with the notable exception of Islam in the Middle East, which I'm gonna blame more on extremism caused my massive political instability. You don't see the kind of stuff in Albania, for example). Yeah there are the nutjob Christians who think the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits around it, but the majority of Christians think they're morons too. If Abrahamic religions were really putting that much of a hamper on progress, then we wouldn't be advancing anywhere near as fast as we are. After all, over half of the Earth's population believes in an Abrahamic religion.

0

#167 to #166 - platinumaltaria (12/31/2015) [-]

Of course, because I'm sure god just "moves in mysterious ways", right?

Well I presume so, and it's also ******** .

They're hardly extreme, everything they do is fully justified by the Qu'ran. I'm just going to make two points here:
1) There's a constant push for "muh jezus in muh schools" in america, which is not helping anything.
2) Islam teaches that women should not be educated, so in fact that is definitely doing damage to the world when you lock up half of your people.

0

#44 to #15 - masterboll has deleted their comment [-]

-3

#8 - wreckit (12/31/2015) [-]

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it say separation of church and state. It's just one interpretation of the 1st amendment. That being said, I believe that religions belong in their respective places of worship while education belongs to the schools.

+23

#11 to #8 - thegoblingamer (12/31/2015) [-]

It doesn't say it in the constitution, but it is stated on an official document.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#/media/File:Article_11.gif

-6

#46 - dehumanizer (12/31/2015) [-]

Why isnt this on the cringe channel?

Why isnt this on the cringe channel?

0

#101 to #46 - thearcher (12/31/2015) [-]

Why isn't that picture on the ******* cringe channel?

+17

#53 to #46 - bendingtimeisgood ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Because it's a legitimate argument about an important and heavily debated issue.

0

#74 to #53 - dehumanizer (12/31/2015) [-]

Where is the argument? I only see some lousy picture with no point to it.

+18

#51 to #46 - rakogoki (12/31/2015) [-]

because separation of church and state is actually a very important thing to have?

because separation of church and state is actually a very important thing to have?

0

#76 to #51 - dehumanizer (12/31/2015) [-]

why?

+1

#92 to #76 - fatsigurd ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

too keep the church from influencing the state and the state from influencing the church.
also religious freedom, which includes the freedom to not have your life dictated by a state religion
a nazi wouldn't know much about freedom, though

0

#93 to #92 - dehumanizer (12/31/2015) [-]

Whats wrong with nationalism?

+1

#94 to #93 - fatsigurd ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

there are three causes of war:
greed
nationalism
religion

all three of them stem from insecurity

0

#114 to #94 - dehumanizer (12/31/2015) [-]

how are the last two even a remotely legitamate cause for war?

+2

#169 to #114 - vytros ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

-.-

-.-

0

#171 to #169 - dehumanizer (12/31/2015) [-]

i see your point

0

#70 - htmm (12/31/2015) [-]

Why not teach the bible, the Quran, and other forms of religious work so that the ignorance of others religion becomes slightly less server? As supposed to freaking out because "MUH ATHEISM"

0

#83 to #70 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

For the same reason you don't teach maths or language at a Church.

-1

#88 to #83 - htmm (12/31/2015) [-]

Church is not meant to shape and drive minds. It's a place of worship, not learning.

Schools, however, are a place of learning. That's why you learn physics, as well as biology and chemistry. It's why you learn the histories of you're country and the history of others and the world. It's why you learn different types of math, geometry, calculus, trigonometry, and why you read difference novels in language arts and why they offer language classes for different dialects.

School is MEANT to broaden your horizons and give you experiences to other than what you already know and are comfortable with. Get you out of your bubble. Now you could argue that is what college/university is for, BUT most of the **** bags who cause problems because of their ignorance don't really make it past High School, and most people aren't required to take a religions experience or whatever course specifically in college, or university. With all the problems that are caused because of a misunderstanding between religions, it would make sense for us to find a way to fix that somewhat.

SO short answer, no, it's not like teaching maths or language at Church, because the ideas of the institutions are different.

0

#89 to #88 - htmm (12/31/2015) [-]

I acknowledge there are typos and grammatical errors in this comment.

+2

#132 to #70 - thesovereigngrave (12/31/2015) [-]

There's a difference between teaching about religion and teaching religion.

+4

#102 to #70 - Blasphemer ONLINE (12/31/2015) [-]

Because there's about 3 new religions every freaking year, ain't nobody got the time to learn all that crap.

+3

#60 - masdercheef (12/31/2015) [-]

Another problem is when people teach according to their own values and not what's objectively the best knowledge. For instance, the ridiculous emphasis on abstinence in American sex ed. Teaching students about birth control instead of abstinence could lead to a dramatic drop in unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, but no, let's keep doing what doesn't work because obviously that'll somehow change. Because we don't want to think about them having sex, despite the fact that it's gonna happen no matter what.

+1

#62 to #60 - sircool (12/31/2015) [-]

I got the **** you're talking about and they went over both. They just said "this **** you can put on your dick works, but not 100%. Abstinence does though."

I got the **** you're talking about and they went over both. They just said "this **** you can put on your dick works, but not 100%. Abstinence does though."

+5

#95 - lordraine (12/31/2015) [-]

The same people who supported this are also the ones letting Muslims in everywhere, Islam being a religion where the church IS the state, and the schools, and the political parties, and the law, ect.

The irony is palpable.

0

#129 to #95 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

You know, last time I checked Albania and Bosnia weren't run as Islamic states and both of them have Islam as the largest religion.

0

#144 to #129 - alekksandar (12/31/2015) [-]

doesn't make either of those countries produce less blood-thirsty jihadists than turkey and somalia, so the problem is Islam

+1

#109 to #95 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

Really... so who are these people? Because sounds to me like you're full of **** and just want to point fingers because in your peon brain anyone who disagrees with you is all in the same group.

0

#183 to #109 - lordraine (01/01/2016) [-]

Liberals who hate Christianity.

Also, everyone who talks **** as an anon is a pussy. Your opinion is invalidated by your cowardice, ******* .

Liberals who hate Christianity.

Also, everyone who talks **** as an anon is a pussy. Your opinion is invalidated by your cowardice, ******* .

+1

#59 - captnnorway (12/31/2015) [-]

Probably should be mandatory to learn the basic belief of the major religions including the non theism ones, like Humanism and how it affects peoples lives. One reason the world is so ****** up, is because people don't know the other side. Learning about different traditions, holy places and history isn't gonna convert anyone trust me, I've been taught about Christianity since I was a kid, and it still doesn't stick. , but it helps unite people who usually wouldn't like each other.

Probably should be mandatory to learn the basic belief of the major religions including the non theism ones, like Humanism and how it affects peoples lives. One reason the world is so ****** up, is because people don't know the other side. Learning about different traditions, holy places and history isn't gonna convert anyone trust me, I've been taught about Christianity since I was a kid, and it still doesn't stick. , but it helps unite people who usually wouldn't like each other.

+2

#61 to #59 - masdercheef (12/31/2015) [-]

I'd say learning about the traditions, holy places, etc. could reasonably convert somebody - I'm sure the same kind of thing happens all the time when people travel the world and experience these religions firsthand, for example, but the point is that shouldn't be a problem. If a person wants to convert to a religion after they've learned about it, once they know what it's about, that should be viewed as a good thing. They're making an educated decision based on actual knowledge, not just being brought into it because they know nothing else.

+4

#27 - payseht (12/31/2015) [-]

Get on Romania's level
We have an entire curriculum dedicated to Religion. It's like Sunday school. From the first grade until you finish High School, bible studies once a week.
That **** helped get my final grades significantly higher through the years, and helped make me an atheist.

+3

#81 - faggotville (12/31/2015) [-]

These comments will be good.

+4

#42 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

> seperation of church and state
> churches are in every state
> we've already failed

+1

#99 to #42 - pinecest (12/31/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

0

#65 - funnyhat (12/31/2015) [-]

something that always ****** me up is knowing how stupid americans are for teaching religion in ordinary schools. Like, what the **** is wrong with you? You teach religious studies at either:
a) religious schools, created with the intent of studying said religion and producing more priests
b) seminaries / universities created with the same ******* above idea
c) no where else, because schools are for passing the knowledge of how the world works and was, gained over generations of people

0

#72 to #65 - bazda (12/31/2015) [-]

And you think religion has played no role, whatsoever, in the history of humanity?
Go ahead and teach a world history class without mentioning religions. Good luck with that.

-1

#85 to #72 - funnyhat (12/31/2015) [-]

are you retarded? World history =/= religeous studies
teaching how religion affected world history is nothing like preching religion in school, you shlock

0

#86 to #65 - manofparody (12/31/2015) [-]

Americano here. I was never taught religion in school. Closest thing to religion that we did in school (besides history research into several religions) was the pledge of allegiance. It's not like that everywhere in the US.

-1

#87 to #86 - funnyhat (12/31/2015) [-]

it's my bad, then, from what i've seen i thought it was popular

0

#28 - mymeatt (12/31/2015) [-]

So, in high schools now a days they have world religions. Definitely would recomend, simple to understand, learn about all the different religions of the world. This is what they believe blah blah blah. Then, they have bible in literature. Where you, you guessed it. You read and discuss the bible, but! ofcorse NO ONE could state opinions about what religion they belonged to, or if they didn't at all. Because it was bible in "literature" we would then read novels or books with references to the bible, or verses of it in the writings and discuss how it emphasize the writers meaning. Highly would not recomend only because it was ******* FILLED with religious fags who only wanted to argue their religion.

0

#30 to #28 - MuahahaOfLore [OP](12/31/2015) [-]

I would love open debate on religion in school

The problem nowadays is when someone gets offended someone gets suspended

0

#34 to #30 - mymeatt (12/31/2015) [-]

******* preach!

0

#96 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

If you teach the Bible, then you also have to teach the Koran, Talmud, Hindu, Buddhist, and every other misbegotten form of belief without proof.

0

#174 - scowler (12/31/2015) [-]

You can't separate Church and State, most the of the State goes to Church!

0

#168 - zerocalibre (12/31/2015) [-]

I went to a Christian school and we actually learned about Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. XD

-1

#165 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

So many salty comments. Why do you guys even care what other people believe? You atheists like to say you're just defending your beliefs against militant theists or trying to teach others the facts. You theists like to say you're trying to "save" the atheists (we both know the majority of you are just getting a little defensive ;) ). Guess what, guys. You're not going to convince anyone of anything through this medium. (I just undermined my own post with that statement, but **** it).

You all seem to also enjoy conflating religion and god. They're two different concepts, my ****** . Just because a religious belief has either been disproven or shown to be highly implausible, thereby potentially undermining the entire religion, doesn't mean that god has been disproven (anyone with two brain cells to rub together understands disproving god is impossible, and not the point, anyway). Religion is just an attempt to understand reality. A god might be part of it. Maybe we'll reach a level of understanding where we'll either have found a higher being, or it'll truly be delusional to believe in one. We are not even close to that point yet, so quit getting your damn panties in a wad! Really, if you think we know what the hell is going on out in the universe, you need to drop your sci-fi novel and pick up contesting journal articles. They actually are quite entertaining once you get a feeling for the jargon. Oh, and be careful of that confirmation bias. I like to read things that directly contest my beliefs in order to combat it. But you guys probably won't do that. You like to spout how enlightened and smart you all are, but you'd better not challenge your views!

-2

#126 - anon (12/31/2015) [-]

We shouldn't have public schools to begin with.

0

#97 - Formus (12/31/2015) [-]

rioght

rioght

[ 183 comments ]

Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

<

>

Friends (0)