Straight from the horses mouth. . Do you believe in evolution? commun . eema : about edifice " ' tat. r. are rm pretty” are all in agreement. possiblility Adam  usa Murica
Upload
Login or register

Straight from the horses mouth

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Tags: usa | Murica
Do you believe in evolution?
commun . eema :
about edifice " '
tat. r. are rm pretty”
are all in agreement.
possiblility Adam (it
H I EVE! 5000 year ago with the talking
s for our noon .- worries me
L that the people running this' on in a
a king snake
urinator. was
jet
...
+1405
Views: 51955 Submitted: 02/12/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (402)
[ 402 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
User avatar #52 - fargtwo
Reply +295 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Why wouldn't he believe in talking snakes? He's a senator, he works with a room full of them every day.

I apologize if this joke's already been made.
User avatar #164 to #52 - rinaz
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
This ******* guy.
User avatar #159 to #52 - forett
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
this guy knows what's up.
#176 to #52 - theruse
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#266 to #176 - anon id: 158349e6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
i marvel at this gif literally every time i see it
its completely perfect
******* magic
User avatar #5 - chuckstein
Reply +258 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I support what he's saying, but Bill Maher is so ******* full of himself I can't stand watching his show.
User avatar #133 to #5 - mynameisgeorge
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
And his fans are the absolute worst people on the planet
#7 to #5 - hugebulliest
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #8 to #7 - chuckstein
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
He's just too ******* cocky for me to be able to watch his show. He acts more high and mighty than everyone too, it just sends a bad image I think
#37 to #8 - headhunternl
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
this is not from his show this is from his movie Religulous and although I agree with you that he is cocky as ****, I still like his closing statement in this movie

added video:
Religulous Ending - Documentary - Bill Maher
User avatar #117 to #37 - theodordronen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
movie turned out to be full of a lot of innacuracies tho
User avatar #165 to #117 - officialjg
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Said who? I'd like to know.
User avatar #359 to #165 - theodordronen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
#184 to #37 - hurzg
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Maybe, just MAYBE there is something other than religion that makes people fight. Like in WW2, WW1, Korean-Vietnam war, Napoleonic wars etc etc. Maybe we need to see why some religious people are very violent while some are very peaceful. Why and when people fight. But I guess that requires some wisdom and intelligence so you search for it, read about it and study about it. But forget it, you can make more money by doing this kind of stuff for either of the side.
#190 to #184 - headhunternl
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
nobody claims its the only reason people fight, but religion has such a high influence on people around the world that you can't ignore it that religion has high ammounts of violence. Note: I'm saying religion here, not faith. Religion is the poisoning factor here. Not believing in a God per se, but the organisation of it makes it subject to human error.
#195 to #190 - hurzg
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Yes but these will occur over and over again. I'm not a expert but I read stuff about this. There are so many rebellions, civil uprising when people become very poor-hungry. The political conflicts often rise with these kind of things. Of course, there are and there will be nut-jobs of any kind. But in poor conditions people actually start to support them.
User avatar #135 to #5 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
That's his style you nimblergob
#331 to #5 - anon id: 4a201813
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I'd have to say I agree. There was one year when he dressed like Steve Irwin for Halloween, complete with a piece of plastic sting ray appearing to come out of his heart.

I get it. Steve Irwin may have taken things a bit too 'far' in his life. He was always placing himself in danger. But I looked up to him as a child. He was a very neat guy. He left behind a wife and two children. He did not deserve to die.

Bill Maher needs to learn some decency and respect.
User avatar #68 to #5 - hudis
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
It's his shtick.
User avatar #278 to #68 - aerosol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
shtick is one thing, but if he genuinely thinks in the same way that he talks to people, he's a bit of an asshole. I get the impression that he just might.
User avatar #12 to #5 - Shiny
Reply +55 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Bill Maher is an asshole, but he's a fun asshole, like the one on your girlfriend.
#110 to #12 - schnizel
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
#50 to #12 - chillybilly
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
That was good
#293 to #50 - anon id: 58ef0abd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
glorious hachikuji
#27 - Yojimbo
Reply +147 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Bill Maher is such a doucher. His "mockumentary" was pretty much him going around the country making fun of people, being a dick, and trying to provoke people into arguments.

He and Ricky Gervais are the two most obnoxious atheists I can think of
#43 to #27 - dehumanizer
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
>2014   
>taking anything by those "poeple" seriously
>2014
>taking anything by those "poeple" seriously
User avatar #58 to #27 - reginleif
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Actually plenty of "liberal" documentaries are just that..... "mocking" the stupid people. :/ I'm pretty sure people are aware that I'm more liberal than conservative, but it's the truth.

Take a look at any "liberal" star and you'll basically see them repeat this formula.

"Show someone making stupid comment".
"Are you serious?!?!?!"
"Either anger or comedic flavoring".
Repeat.

It's like porn to some people.
User avatar #162 to #27 - zzforrest
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Also most of the "facts" he presented in his mockumentary are actually completely ********.
#225 to #27 - kez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
More you are just butthurt tbh.
#241 to #27 - kiboz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Richard Dawkins and a million times Richard Dawkins.
User avatar #281 to #27 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I dunno. Ricky Gervais is absolutely hilarious and he is such a good actor when representing challenged roles. He can be a bit OTT with the science, but he is a great comedian.
User avatar #283 to #281 - Yojimbo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I don't disagree. I think he is very funny. I enjoyed The Office alot. But his twitter posts are where his fedora atheist side shows.
User avatar #284 to #283 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Yeah. It's hard to convey humour in 140 characters, so he just ridicules people online for their beliefs. It is a bit of a dickish thing to do.
User avatar #323 to #27 - fedak
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I dunno, Dawkins is a massive douche as well
#119 to #27 - erikstadt
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Ricky Gervais rocks!
User avatar #285 to #119 - Yojimbo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Look, I think Ricky Gervais is very funny. I enjoyed him on the British Office alot. But he is an obnoxious atheist. That's all I'm saying here.
User avatar #136 to #27 - TexMex
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
**** you. Every single time something about Ricky Gervais, Jimmy Carr or Bill Maher is posted, someone like you post about them being "douchebags". THEY'RE ******* COMEDIANS. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ENTERTAINING.
User avatar #152 to #136 - theshadowed
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Being a douchebag ≠ Being funnt
User avatar #168 to #152 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
How is he an actual douchebag?
User avatar #177 to #168 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Well he's not being funny is he? When people like Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle are ridiculously rude but do it as part of a joke. Bill Maher, in this at least, isn't being funny. Hes going around questioning people's beliefs. SO what if that senator is Religious
User avatar #183 to #177 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I think it's pretty funny. How he says that he might believe in Adam and Eve and then says that an IQ-test isn't needed to be a senator. Is he a douchebag because you don't have that taste in humor? Also, you don't mind Jimmy Carr heckling religion and religious people right?
User avatar #185 to #183 - theshadowed
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Well it doesn't seem like hes making a joke. Hes just arguing with him. You find it funny because you think hes an idiot for believing genesis word-for-word. I don't find it funny because I don't think calling people stupid for their beliefs is funny. And Jimmy Carr I don't mind because he heckles everyone, and doesn't actually make shows were he goes around arguing with people to show his intelligence off
User avatar #187 to #185 - TexMex
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Why is religion such a delicate ******* thing? It's just something someone thinks about something. You see the people going around hunting for Bigfoot, leprechauns and trolls but you don't treat their ideas like they're sane. So why would you with people thinking god exists?
User avatar #189 to #187 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Aha, now we're making assumptions. I never said I treat those people like idiots, I don't. If someone makes a joke about, I would laugh. Same with religion. But if someone made a show running around insulting and atempting to dispprove them, I would find it in bad taste
User avatar #193 to #189 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
When I said "you" I meant to say "one" sorry, I don't mean you specifically.
And if a ******* Senator believes in creationism, you have the ******* right to heckle him.
He has facts to back him up. So it's basically like going up to people with white skin and telling them they have white skin, with them denying it.
User avatar #194 to #193 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
If a Senator believes in creationism, thats fine. There is a separation of Church and State (well there should be) for a reason. It doesn't matter what he believes. Yes, it may affect his political beliefs, but we all have little things that do that
User avatar #201 to #194 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
How the **** can you want a leader who denies simple facts?
User avatar #202 to #201 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Because it doesn't matter due to the Separation of State and Church. Obama is religious.
User avatar #205 to #202 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
THEN WHY IS IT NOT OKAY TO QUESTION PEOPLE'S BELIEFS?
User avatar #207 to #205 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
it being religion
User avatar #206 to #205 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
If it doesn't cause any harm, what the point
User avatar #217 to #206 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Because it's ******* hilarious when they say **** like in the picture.
User avatar #188 to #185 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Also, watch this and tell me what you think about it. Jimmy Carr on Dawkins, Religion and Atheism
User avatar #191 to #188 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
...So he is an atheist. His jokes were that. Jokes. And did you not even listen to his talk at the end? He says that he won't go around doing what Bill Maher and Dawkins do, as its not his place.

Let me clear something up. I support a lot of Dawkin's work. Things like the Creationism Museum in America are jokes. I myself am religious, but I disagree with taking Genesis literally. But I respect people's rights to have opinions. Something some people are sorely lacking
User avatar #199 to #191 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Dawkins and Bill Maher don't do the same thing. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and Bill Maher is a comedian. Still, messing around with bigoted stupid people is funny.
User avatar #200 to #199 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
'Bigoted stupid people'

After I comment like that, I can see there is no point in talking to you.
User avatar #203 to #200 - TexMex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Complete)
bigoted.
User avatar #69 to #27 - hudis
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
It's a comedy shtick. He does it to be memorable and stand out, which is what exaggerated roles are for. If he didn't do this, he wouldn't be half as popular or half as famous.
#175 to #69 - theruse
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
So in order to be famous, he decides being a Class-A Douche is the best way?
So in order to be famous, he decides being a Class-A Douche is the best way?
User avatar #246 to #175 - blooby
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
You just described every American comedian.
#244 to #175 - anon id: 5bb156d4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Well, many have succeeded. But if a person is a douche but his point is right, does it matter if he's a dick? Unless he's something akin to WWII moustache party leaders, of course.
#292 to #69 - Yojimbo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I disagree. I think Ricky Gervais is very funny, and he is memorable for his TV and movie roles, as well as his stand up. I would not say he is famous for his berating twitter posts, which may be funny to fedora atheists, but to anyone with an ounce of respect for someone else's religion, are just dickish. I know Gervais can be funny without being a dick, so I personally hope you're wrong about i being a "shtick".
#71 to #69 - anon id: aaba0ad9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Yeah I'm not seeing the comedy part.
User avatar #73 to #71 - hudis
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Too bad. It's a matter of taste. Still, you don't even like him and yet you've seen his 'mockumentary', you take the time to make a post about him here and clearly you feel some way about it, so evidently what he's doing works perfectly.
#77 to #73 - anon id: aaba0ad9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Popularity doesn't excuse douchebaggery, I -could- go around punching babies in the nutsack and get quite a lot of publicity, would that make me a douchebag? Yes, yes it would.
User avatar #80 to #77 - hudis
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I'm not saying it excuses anything. I'm saying it explains why he does it.

People like Bill Maher, or Stephen Colbert or even Bill O'Reilly don't care what people think. They devote all that energy to the role they're playing instead, to inflate their TV-persona and take as much space as possible to stay relevant and be remembered. That way they gather more and more people who listen to what they have to say beneath the role they're playing, which ultimately serves their purpose (although purpose often varies, whether it be noble or selfish). It's just a pragmatic way of doing things. You carve yourself a piece of the pie and protect it with any means you've got, or it'll be stolen right under your nose the second you look away. That's how the TV business works.
#90 to #80 - anon id: aaba0ad9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I can get why he does it but it doesn't make him any less of a douchebag regardless of whether it's just a "role" (which I highly doubt it is.) I've seen Colbert out of character and i've seen O'Reilly being less confrontational than he usually is but I've never seen anything to suggest that how Maher acts on TV isn't exactly how he is in real life.
User avatar #94 to #90 - hudis
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I don't understand why it even matters whether he's a douchebag or not.
#101 to #94 - anon id: aaba0ad9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Because being a dick shouldn't be something that's condoned, especially if that person is making money by being a gigantic dickhead.
User avatar #102 to #101 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Fair point.
User avatar #81 to #80 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Phrased it a little weirdly. When I say "even Bill O'Reilly", I'm implying that even he plays a role and has a shtick, not that it's in any way surprising that he probably doesn't care what people think.
User avatar #74 to #71 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Sorry, I may have assumed you were Yojimbo just then. Either way the point still stands.
#166 - kthxbailol
Reply +66 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
christians: if you don´t believe in evolution, how come snakes don´t talk anymore?
christians 0
atheists 0
megatron 69
User avatar #196 to #166 - azumeow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
My *****
User avatar #235 to #166 - sanguinesolitude
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
"The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life." genesis 3:14

well seeing as the serpent was cursed to lose it's limbs and slither on the ground eating dust, I think it is fair to assume God also took away it's speaking abilities, or maybe it just cant talk around all the dust. As Ken Ham would tell you, sometimes the answers you seek ARE found in the bible.
#330 to #235 - anon id: 9a3031ef
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
also, and i don't know if this is just me, but genesis 3:14 sounds alot like evolution to me, i honestly think that evolution was something created by god so he could change creatures because:
Romans 11:33: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"
which was then simplified by William Cowper who lived in the 19th century who wrote "God moves in a mysterious ways"
User avatar #342 to #330 - sanguinesolitude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Well I am a nonbeliever. I think if God created the universe and life using evolution, and he was behind the authors of the bible then he would have mentioned the process to his believers. Being all-knowing he would realize that it was important since not including the how would lead to conflict and hold humanity back for hundreds of years.

My big issue is that one of the following seems to need to be true.
A. God exists and cares that we know he exists, in which case he should make it very clear that he does with perfect scriptures and indicating what .
B. God exists and doesnt care about humanity, thus hasnt sent prophets or anything, we just made **** up.
C. God doesnt exist and we just made **** up.

seems like if God is real, then he isn't very good at promoting himself.
#315 to #235 - anon id: 3971bdbe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
pssst... It was a joke
#198 - meuk
Reply +44 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
#179 - anon id: c03accb0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
and thats why atheists are assholes... they can't let anyone believe what they want
#192 to #179 - EpicAnon
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
User avatar #239 to #179 - seras
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I'm an atheist. I don't care what you believe it, it's just not for me.
#336 to #179 - anon id: dd69c60d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I beleve flying planes in to buildings is good. i beleve killing homosexuals is good. i beleve stoning kids is good. i beleve killing a woman for being raped is good. i beleve painting a picture is a good reason to kill someone. i beleve in killing someone for not paying taxes to my religion. i beleve in all this. dont you dare question me. how dare anyone say i cant beleve what i whant. i beleve all blacks are the devil... let me beleve what i whant! :'(
User avatar #180 to #179 - AvatarAirBender
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
It becomes a huge problem in America because we have separation of church and state. We can't have law makers passing laws based on their religious beliefs.
#204 to #180 - englman
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
(My anger is not directed at you, but instead at this topic<3)

So what if they did essentially the opposite of what they're doing now? Allow everyone to believe what they want, where-ever they want, and maybe even teach it in schools (NOT force you to believe anything though [and for fucks sake, teach evolution too]) so we have fewer ignorant, intolerant twats running around saying "Mr.Teacher talked about a Jesus today and I'm suddenly soooooo offended~!"

Taking Religion out of virtually everything seems to be like a form of Atheists forcing THEIR views on everyone else while claiming "PEOPLE CAN'T FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS!". Instead, what if everyone just learned about all the religions, evolution, *********************** if they so please, and did whatever the **** they wanted with the info.

As far as the law goes, just base it on what hurts the fewest people and maximizes the largest possibly level of freedom. I'm Christian and still realize morality is a bizarre 'construct', however necessarily it may be for society to function ****************. But ugh.. Maybe Religion doesn't belong in the law. But I see no reason in trying to take it out of nearly everything else. We're honestly just grooming people to be more intolerant by introducing fewer ideas to them. ESPECIALLY if it's an idea they disagree with, because then they never get that exposure to conflicting thoughts. BOOM- Tons of 'offended'/'offensive' twats running around.

If you'll excuse me, I need to go lie down now..
User avatar #234 to #204 - sanguinesolitude
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
so you want science class to basically just be a bunch of theories, from pasta-farianism, to islam, to buddhism, to hinduism, to scientology, to evolution all just taught as equally viable options?

No-one complains when christianity is taught in a comparative religion class in a public school, it is when the biblical creation story gets taught as though it were science, despite there being zero evidence of it being accurate.
User avatar #237 to #234 - englman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I just think there should be a "Religions of the World/Philosophy" class or something, AND a "Take no **** at parent teacher conference from your strictly Creationist mother" Science class. Teach it all and let kids be educated.
User avatar #301 to #204 - nightmareschild
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
realize morality is a bizarre 'construct'

wow, I thought I was the only person who thought that.
User avatar #263 to #204 - richardstiffy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Dude. There are literally an infinite number of religions and theories to teach kids then.

Atheists want to uphold the constitution and prevent catering to one specific religion - Christianity in the United States.

Atheists aren't forcing their beliefs on anyone. They don't even have beliefs! It's a lack of belief due to the lack of evidence. You can't make something up on the spot and then claim it should be taught in schools because you think it would solve problems. We teach kids science... things that can be observed, tested, confirmed and predicted. We don't teach them faith in school. That's not how it goes.

Go sit in the corner of shame now.
User avatar #212 to #180 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
But you can have people passing laws on their other beliefs?

That's where my issue is. People trying to pass laws based on their personal ethics and morals, and then people say "Well you can't do that, it's from the bible". Regardless of where they got it, they should be allowed to pass the laws that they believe in if they have the support of the majority.

Who cares where it comes from? As long as the majority supports them, what is the concern? The USA was founded on the idea that every person is equal unless they have done something to have that right revoked but now people seem to go "Well that person believes in something different, that I believe ridiculous, therefore they shouldn't be allowed. Even if people support them"
User avatar #248 to #212 - learnthisline
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Bro, Jefferson was so ******* specific about Christianity have no impact on how America should govern.
It's disheartening to know that people are so unaware of such fundamental parts of the formation of their State.
So yes it really does matter where the belief comes from - specifically in relation to America anyway.
If it was England, then there could be no qualms, but when the founding fathers literally put in articles to prevent this type of ****, then there are qualms to be had.
User avatar #326 to #212 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
It's not that they are based on personal ethics and morals, but based on logical reasoning. (atleast i wish it was that case)
#299 to #212 - anon id: f64e3182
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Well, why don't we just look at what the majority thought before, then?

The majority hated gays.
The majority hated atheists.
The majority hated non-abrahamian-religious people.
The majority thought women shouldn't have rights.
The majority thought that blacks were inferior.

All of these thoughts were based on religion. Was the majority right to suppress everyone for their own religion?
User avatar #261 to #212 - richardstiffy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Wait, everyone is equal, unless the majority has something to say about it?

Majority says: NO RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE BASED ON SOMETHING I CAN'T PROVE!

Well that's ******* stupid. A major part of our government is to grant each and every person liberty and happiness, as in, protecting the minorities so their rights are not infringed upon. Majority rule applies to some things, not beliefs based on persecution.
User avatar #308 to #261 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Except the majority doesn't believe that. A vocal minority does.
And people who get elected in power don't bother to change that because there are bigger issues to worry about.
#253 to #180 - ishotthedeputy
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Yeah, how dare lawmakers reflect their work based on their beliefs. Everyone trying to pass gay rights laws oughta be-oh wait, that's not the narrative, is it?
User avatar #242 to #180 - dangler
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Guess what! Church =/= religion
"Separation of church and state" was meant to prevent a church-run state or a state-run church. Not to have every person in congress completely disregard their religious beliefs when making decisions. Besides, the US is a representative democracy. Officials who make decisions based on religious beliefs are doing so because the people voted for them.
#11 - superwheels
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
The Bible is hilarious...   
   
If you're dumb enough to take it literally.    
   
Every single story in the bible is a metaphor meant to represent the correct ways to live your life. God didn't actually turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt when she looked back the city of Sodom's destruction, it's just a metaphor for not dwelling on the past. For this reason both Bill Maher and the Senator are stupid.    
   
Bill and the Senator are treating the book of Genesis like it's a scientific research paper explaining the origin of man, which is stupid for obvious reasons.
The Bible is hilarious...

If you're dumb enough to take it literally.

Every single story in the bible is a metaphor meant to represent the correct ways to live your life. God didn't actually turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt when she looked back the city of Sodom's destruction, it's just a metaphor for not dwelling on the past. For this reason both Bill Maher and the Senator are stupid.

Bill and the Senator are treating the book of Genesis like it's a scientific research paper explaining the origin of man, which is stupid for obvious reasons.
#13 to #11 - anon id: 44323a15
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
yes, yes, everything is a metaphor just so you can interpret it 1000 different ways so if your first interpretation is wrong, you can just say oops i actually meant:...


at least science admits when it's wrong and explains why it was wrong and explains how it is right once again until proven wrong

User avatar #51 to #13 - dvdstvns
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
But it's interpretations are generally for people to be better and kinder to each other, help the less fortunate, don't brag, and many other things that are generally meant to make society a better place. As an atheist, I don't see anything wrong with a religion simply wanting to make the world a better place. When I get concerned is when people begin taking things to literally and all of a sudden begin persecuting a group because it goes against what they interpreted.
User avatar #290 to #13 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
>implying science and religion are intrinsically contradictory
>implying you can't be religious and accept scientific facts
User avatar #14 to #13 - superwheels
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
The point is that science and religion are two completely different concepts.

One teaches how to live life, the other teaches how life is able to be lived.
User avatar #30 to #14 - popeflatus
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Love that rape, genocide, infanticide, no pork eating, no multi fabric clothes, no work on the sabath etc. How to live? Get real.
User avatar #33 to #30 - grahamcracker
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
But...but...metaphors
User avatar #34 to #33 - popeflatus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
#36 to #30 - rabidaardvark
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
All religion is just one view of how life should be lived. Thats why there has never been one global religion, or even a religion with a majority of the world's population under it, because people can never agree on whats the best way to live. Not that theres anything wrong with having guidelines on how to live, just so long as you dont preach that yours is better than anyone elses, and yours doesnt include killing everyone that disagrees with you.
User avatar #109 to #30 - meganinja
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Yeah that's all old testament. As in Christians don't have to follow it.
User avatar #156 to #109 - clannadqs
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
So... an omnipotent and omniscient being changed his mind?
User avatar #222 to #156 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
No, the purpose of Jesus coming down was to 'override' the old testament. Christians do not have to make live sacrifices. The old rules don't apply.
User avatar #270 to #222 - clannadqs
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
So, I guess I have to repeat myself. An omnipotent and omniscient being had to correct himself as his first route in regards to "governing" humans was not decent enough.
User avatar #276 to #270 - meganinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
No, it was originally planned that this would happen.
User avatar #318 to #276 - rhiaanor
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Thats what I usually say if i **** up
User avatar #341 to #318 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Except that the Jews knew that a Messiah was coming. They knew beforehand that these laws would eventually be overwritten. They just didn't know when. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah, while Jews don't think so and continue to abide by the Old Testament because they're still waiting for the Messiah to show up.
User avatar #350 to #341 - clannadqs
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
What? the New Testament wasn't even finished until, at a minimum, 100 years after the death of a man named Jesus. Hell, people still don't know who wrote most of the New Testament, yet people cling to it as if it is flawless and the word of god.
User avatar #351 to #350 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I didn't say it was written in the New Testament, or that the New Testament was written before Jesus. I'm not sure exactly where it's stated, it might not even be in the Old Testament, but the Jews knew a Messiah was coming. That's one of the major points of their religion. That nobody will go to Heaven or Hell until the Messiah comes (or maybe everybody's in Hell until he comes, can't remember the specifics) and when he comes the Jews go to Heaven.
User avatar #352 to #351 - clannadqs
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
That's not the point I was hitting on. No written law was known to be coming from a messiah. They literally thought he would be a king and would change Israel for good. They still followed the laws vehemently and even after he came, most did. There is next to no evidence that anyone changed their way of life between 1-100 AD directly from the "messiah" coming. All of the change stemmed from when the New Testament gained popularity.
User avatar #354 to #352 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Alright I'm not versed enough to know exactly what was going on. But I know that I can not follow old testament laws and end up in Heaven.
User avatar #355 to #354 - clannadqs
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
To each his own, but I cannot understand why people still hang onto religion. I went to a private christian school all of my life and was taught by colleagues of famous apologist such as Dr. William Lane Craig. I learned everything from Apologetics to the philosophy behind the bible and yet I still do not believe. Do you mind answering why you think your religion is the correct one?
User avatar #357 to #355 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I don't have any evidence of why mine's the correct religion. I simply have faith that what I was raised to believe is correct. It may be incorrect. That would suck. But if it is correct then it would be amazing.
User avatar #358 to #357 - clannadqs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Fair enough.
User avatar #377 to #341 - popeflatus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Again, there is no evidence to support this at all. The entire book is fictitious!
User avatar #382 to #377 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
And what are you trying to prove exactly? This is an argument about the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Science has not debunked either religion, although they have not found proof of it either. You're just making an ass of yourself here.
User avatar #384 to #382 - popeflatus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
Science has shown that the universe is not 6000 years old but is in fact about 13.8 billion years old. We know that Adam and Eve never existed and hence there is no 'original sin' or 'fall of man'. We know there was no great flood and hence no Noah. The story of Moses comes from about 1000 years before there was even such a thing as an Israelite (An ancient Egyptian story with different names), so there was no exodus from Egypt (Zero evidence that there were Jewish slaves there), and certainly then there was no god killing babies. There is no mention of Jesus outside the bible and even in the bible Jesus makes reference these old testament stories that we know are false. If that doesn't show that Judaism and Christianity are false, then it's time to go back to school.
User avatar #385 to #384 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
The only people who know of this comment by this point are you and I. I'm not changing my faith, why argue and make yourself look like an ass? I'm not trying to convert you, atheism had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
User avatar #386 to #385 - popeflatus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
So when presented with evidence you will ignore it in favor of 'faith'? Faith is believing in something when there is now evidence to support it. The bible says the Earth is flat, when we clearly know that it is not. It says bats are birds and that the sun stopped in the sky, both of which are clearly false. In light of these fallacies, do you choose to maintain your faith? People who think that science is wrong about physics, chemistry, biology and geology etc while continuing to use those sciences (like the computer you're on now) are arrogant hypocrites who need to learn how the world really works. Having faith that runs counter to overwhelming evidence is what makes you, not me, look like an ass.
User avatar #390 to #386 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
All of the problems you have with Christianity, and then set to blame them on me, as if I have committed every offense that a Christian has ever been recorded doing. Somehow, just by being a Christian, no. I hadn't even said I was a Christian until you started getting butthurt about it, as before I was simply stating the Christian point of view. Somehow, just by defending the Christian viewpoint, I had garnered your hatred. I am obviously an arrogant hypocrite that has no idea how the world works. Oh, woe is me. I should have seen this coming. I knew I should have bought one of those fedoras when they were on sale and started bashing Christians in hopes that the Almighty Atheist Church would accept me into their ranks. Oh wait, that's stereotyping Atheists. That would be rude of me to assume every person of one 'religion' is a douchebag. But that doesn't seem to stop you. I have nothing against Atheism, as I have several Atheist friends. I have never tried to convert one, and I've held the expectation that they don't try to convert me. I let them rant about things, as I know it can be tough to be a minority sometimes.

In case my sarcasm was being a bit too vague for you to understand, no. I do not think that the Earth is flat. I do not think bats or birds, or that the sun is stopped in the sky. I do not disagree with chemistry, biology, or geology. I do, however disagree with some physics. However, this is unrelated to me being Christian. I have a registered Intelligence Quotient of over 160, and disagree with some theories regarding a physical speed cap at light speed, and regarding the laws of conservation of mass and energy. I, however, have very little evidence supporting my feelings, so I do not typically share them publicly, as there admittedly is a large chance of me being incorrect.

You are the worst kind of Atheist, please go bother somebody else who actually deserves it.
User avatar #389 to #386 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
What you presented is not evidence. You presented claims simply opposing my view. I stated I did not want to argue this. You provided no support to your claims, you simply stated them. I could say Obama was Jesus and if you didn't accept that I could say you were ignoring my evidence. You're simply arguing for no reason other than to be a douche.

"The book is fictitious" is not an appropriate response to a debate arguing the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Claiming that both points are wrong because you are atheist is not how debates work. You can keep trying to 'convert' me to Atheism, or whatever the hell reason you have behind arguing with one specific person who isn't arguing back, but

1) You provide no evidence to YOUR claims. You're saying my side of view "which I haven't even claimed, you simply assume I claim" is ********, and make your own facts, which may or may not be true.

2) AGAIN, I was not arguing anything about whether the Bible is even a real book or not (I think it is, but that's beside the point), but simply arguing about specific verses in the Old Testament, which I said were overridden by the New Testament. At no point is the validity of either book questioned. I have not argued one bit on whether the Bible is real or not. Because that's something I know I can't prove to you, so I shouldn't even try. Instead of realizing the same for me, you stubbornly try to defend your 'faith' which I've somehow insulted just by being a Christian. Religion isn't something that can be proven or disproven. For all we know, the Ancient Greeks could have been right. I choose not to think that, but if anybody does think that way, I understand.

3) You continue to argue, and red thumb all of my comments, when I had informed you I was not interested in a religious debate between Christianity and Atheism. You then go off on a tangent to list problems you have with Christianity, cont.
User avatar #376 to #276 - popeflatus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
There is no evidence that this is true. The old testament has been fully debunked by science and history. No Adam and Eve existed, no global flood, and no Moses and the exodus. Jesus (if he even existed) makes reference to events that we know did not happen, so he was not divine.
User avatar #349 to #276 - clannadqs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Where?
User avatar #375 to #222 - popeflatus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
False. Jesus said you have to follow the old testament as well.
User avatar #374 to #109 - popeflatus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Jesus said that you have to uphold the old laws as well.
#314 to #11 - senyorcable
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
In my humble opinion (and ignoring your whole point), reading some parts of the Bible literally is kind of awesome, like any other mythologic story.

>That one prophet who was being made fun of for being bald by younsters, so God send two bears that slaughtered them.

>Somewhere in the Apocalypse books, it talks about how John (I think it was John) goes to an island where he meets an avatar of God who is made of pure light, has a two-blade sword coming out of his mouth and has seven stars in his hand.

>And in the Apocalypse is also mentioned a dragon with seven heads who drags stars with his tails.

>Moses turning water to blood.

That's kind of brutal.
#329 to #11 - anon id: dd69c60d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
and thats why religion is just idiotic, you can just pick what you like and dont like from the book. and some pick the idiotic **** and fly planes in to a building. and if everystorry is a that, why the **** would you beleve in god, if there was no god, no original sin and so on. guys like you are creeping me out. you never know what you do the next day. burn a black dude on a cross? stone someone for working on the wrong day? kill homosexuals?
User avatar #146 to #11 - ninjaroo
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Because when I want to teach a child not to humiliate others, I tell them a story about a woman seeing her husband fighting someone and grabbing the other guys balls and how if girls do that they should have their hands cut off.
Not just
Tell them not to humiliate others.
Why do we need metaphors on how to live our lives again?
User avatar #161 to #11 - oosime
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
ok ill probably get red thumbed for this, but i feel like religious people claim that their texts are "metaphorical" simply so that their religion can remain relevant even after their stories are proven to be utterly wrong.
User avatar #172 to #11 - frutus
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Wasn't it Lot's daughters that got him drunk and raped him to get pregnant?
Please explain this metaphor. Yes, I am serious.
User avatar #35 to #11 - YllekNayr
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
It's too bad that Christianity is ACTUALLY divided on the whole "some parts are literal and some are figurative" argument.

Once all you guys figure out how it'll actually be interpreted, you'll start getting the same responses from atheists, rather than different kinds from different atheists.
#181 - hirollin
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Your way of thinking is faulty.
You are incapable of making rational decisions.
Your ability to lead is compromised.
Calm yourself, for there is hope yet.
Big Brother will take care of everything.
User avatar #158 - cryingchicken
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Oh look, 2 assholes trying to decide which one is the bigger asshole.
User avatar #186 to #158 - catburglarpenis
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
You deserve more thumbs.
User avatar #107 - kirkbot
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
god punished the "snake" after Adam and Eve were thrown out of the paradise
god said that the snake from now on has to crouch on the ground
so did the snake have legs before that?
#144 to #107 - stalini
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
>ponyfag
User avatar #215 to #107 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Yes, snakes had legs before that.
#115 to #107 - faggymcniggerballs
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
The "serpent" had legs. For disobeying the Lord, God took his legs away, turning him into a snake. I was raised a Christian (but am Agnostic) and my uncle had this cartoon video bible set, so this may not be what is written, but the basic gist of it.
#127 to #115 - gabemczombie
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Agnostic with christian raising? Me too!
Agnostic with christian raising? Me too!
User avatar #142 to #127 - sexyhimself
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]










what do Agnostic mean?



too lazy to google
User avatar #157 to #142 - burdenedsoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
agnostic is like a middle ground between religious and athiest

it can vary from person to person, but to me being agnostic is believing in a higher power, but not any religion's specific god(s)
User avatar #163 to #157 - KINGOFTHESTARS
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
i had no idea thats what the middle ground was

i thought agnosticism was the belief and acknowledgement of a higher power but dont belong to an organized religion

kinda like one belives a sky guy put us here but doesnt belive an of the stuff they are told

#169 to #163 - burdenedsoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
"the belief and acknowledgment of a higher power but don't belong to an organized religion" basically what i just said

i also said it varies from person to person what being agnostic means to them

i may also be completely wrong and not have a clue what i'm actually talking about, so there's that
#171 to #169 - KINGOFTHESTARS
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
interesting
User avatar #150 to #142 - ninjaroo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Depends who you ask. If you asked me, it's a word you add to another word to clarify you don't claim to know for sure.
Agnostic Atheist - An atheist who is uncertain that there is no god.
Some people use it as a middle ground though. Neither atheist nor religious. Basically throwing your hands in the air and going "**** it, I don't know."
User avatar #149 to #142 - gabemczombie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Agnostics believe that we will never know if there is a god or not
User avatar #132 to #115 - ninjaroo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
serpent
/ˈsəːp(ə)nt/
noun
noun: serpent; plural noun: serpents1. literary
a large snake.
#247 to #132 - faggymcniggerballs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
I just used what the cartoon called it.
#130 to #107 - pickaxe
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
&quot;crouching on the ground&quot;
"crouching on the ground"
#138 to #130 - nexdemise
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
******* Australia.
******* Australia.