True

But there aren't any

**thesilverpanther directs your attention downward**
Look again, my friend.

Are those Twinkies?

It's butter
Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9pW6PwEayQ (It's not the original, but if you google "butter dance" you can watch the original, it's the Lilith June 5 video)

I thought it was butter

It's about time, my friend

What the fuck is that?

It's from Heinoustuck, some sprites from Homestuck. They are wonderfull

What's the point of homestuck? I know a few people that like it, and they're all annoying as fuck.

I find it kinda hard to explain, but the fandom it's very annoying sometimes, but the comic it's so worth it
But you need to have time to read it, because it's long as bananas

That I do not have. My time is spent on important things. With tiny bits set aside for fj

The sea's al calm, captain!

all*

Sorry, english it's not my first language, I'm trying to do my best

its okay dude, don't worry about it

eh, you still did okay. +1

Dude It's me or they are just thumbing down every comment I make on this post?

yes

Dude, I didn't insult anyone (in the comments, I'm sure that all of the red thumbs are because bluh bluh u a bad person), I'm trying my best to write in english to respond, and I try to do my best
But it seems that you can only make repost and un-funny rage comics if you want to have a good time on FJ

*literally,

Sorry. Your point is spot on, but your grammar isn't.

I actually had second thoughts about that. English is not my mother language and "literal" didn't sound wrong at all. I was mistaken. Thank you for correcting me.

Naa fuck that, if someone is religious and they follow every single word of the bible/their holy book then thats fine and i will defend their right to do that but when people start changing all the bits in their religion which are silly/been disproved and say all these bits are parables and aren't to be taken literally fuck that. What gives you the right to question your holy book? If you believe in a religion you should believe every single word of that religion you shouldn't be able to pick and choose.

TL;DR stop picking and choosing the parts of religion YOU want, its either all or nothing fuckers.

There is a difference between simply believing in a religion, and being a zealous douche bag who follows everything a religious text says to a tee.

All that is required to say, be a Christian, is to believe in God and believe that Jesus Christ died to save us from our own sins. That's it. Literally, that's it. I mean in the Christian faith, if you believe that (truly believe it) then you are saved from eternal damnation in hell. It really is that simple.

There is no other thing that is required of you to claim to be a follower of the Christian faith. If you truly are a Christian, however, then you will strive to follow a Christ-like lifestyle.

I wonder how long ago it was changed to all you need to do is to believe in God and accept jesus because im 100% sure that if even 300 years ago you were to only to do them two things you wouldn't have been accepted as a true christian.

I'm not trying to throw anything at you, or anything like that, but i thought i would share my beliefs with you about this topic.

I wholeheartedly concur with everything you said!

It shouldn't matter what other people think of your faith. It really shouldn't. Sure you might be persecuted because other people don't think what you believe is right, but what does it matter. I fully believe that if someone believes in God and believes that Jesus Christ saved us from our sins, then they are a Christian.

You have to be sincere when you claim those two things, because otherwise it's just meaningless. Only the person in question can decide whether or not they were sincere.

I could care less what other people think about my religious beliefs, but i know that i believe in God and Jesus Christ and that should be enough for other people. People who will claim righteousness because they don't eat meat on the sabbath are just striving for attention, and attempting to claim to be better than me because of "their faith."

I think people can believe whatever they want. I don't see why you have to be a slave to other people's perception.

Not really... That's not the point...
If you're to take one part of it as cold hard fact, say, the ressureciton, and Jesus being the messiah and all that, that means you have to take all of it as fact, or you're just cherrypicking and making up your own cosmology.
If those books were truly the word of a divine being, they would be completely true, and as we know the bibles literal timeline diverges FAR from the actual timeline of historical and prehistorical events.

If a god really needs "proper interpretation" to be understood... what?

That's why I turned away from religion, because as soon as science proves that something in the book is wrong, "smart" religious people just pull the " was always meant as a metaphor" bullshit.

When every thing in your is meant as a metaphor will your still believe it?

And what's metaphorical about " if a man lies with another man as he does a woman he is to be executed " ( paraphrased, leviticus, look it up )

I take everything in Islam literally

Nah, sounds a bit too religious for me.

So you agree with the moral aspects of it but not necessarily the literature of it?

YEP

Then.. I kind of agree with you for the most part,

Also, atheists say shit about religion all the time. Not all atheists are dumb, but the type of atheist that you are is retarded.

Third time I've got the message saying I can't thumb you down anymore, because my IP has voted too many times.

Obviously because most of us are atheists and we think its funny.

My point is that he can't know if it's the same people who have double morale or an entirely different person who just thinks differently, yet he goes with the assumption that the people on this site is always the same people, no matter time zones or etc.

How is that hard to understand?

Nothing about your statements make sense or have any relevance to the comment. Also what the fuck is "double morale?" At any rate, he never said anything about "the same people" or whatever it is you're talking about. He's saying that even though he's atheist, he thinks it's bullshit that whenever atheists make fun of religious people, they get thumbed up; but whenever religious people so much as mention their religion, they get shot down immediately. I know what he's saying because I'm of the exact same mindset- I'm an atheist, and I pride myself on logic, and I'm tired of assholes like OP giving us a bad name and making us seem like condescending dicks.

Alright, I was trying to raise the question as to how it was hypocritical of anyone if it wasn't the same people, but I get your point, we won't get anywhere by acting like christians used to.

But I guess that this site just simply leans aways from religion, which is a good thing mind you.

And I wouldn't personaly worry about someone giving a group of people a bad name per say, if we go far enough and use enough logic, as I mentioned, you'd know not all people are the same and that a group of people shouldn't be judged by the actions of one member of the group, but fair enough.

Gene Wilder was an atheist, bro.

You do realize this isn't his quote so your argument is irrelevant?

His argument definitely applies.

I do realize that. For that reason he would likely be offended by this.
I'd also like to point out that, if you looked at my related pic, atheists scored highest on religious education tests.

Scumbag Steve and Unlucky Brian would also be offended by most of the stuff they are used for. Cruel fate of the memes.
Gregot Mendel was a catholic monk, Albert Einstein was highly religious. If a person is smart and intelligent, I don't care what he believes in. By the way, there isn't a universal test that can describe human's intelligence. So, please, don't base your assumptions on only one study.

I dunno, I've seen Atheists that have read the bible and Christians that haven't.

OP is clearly not one of them

Based off my experience, it's the complete opposite.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I guess you just were unlucky to meet the wrong people. But please keep in mind that personal experience can be bias.

I'm sure this only received thumbs because of what people assume. I'm atheist and I've read the Bible. I think it's a nice thing to read but should be read as literature. Not the way people take it today.

It's not enough to read only the Bible itself, but also some literature that describes the impact of religion on people, I personally recommend "The pillars of the earth". It describes medieval England, and I liked how author portrayed different types of believers. It's a long book, but clearly worth it.

I'll be sure to look at that, thnx

yes^ what he said

And all we ask is that those of Religion do the same for Atheists.

.. What about other religions..?

I guess you don't have any self respect then

Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton were both religious in some way, shape, or form. Come to think of it, most of the big historical scientists and mathematicians believed in a higher power. You are ignorant if you think that believing in a god makes you an idiot. You aren't any better than those "raging Christians" if you don't respect people for their beliefs.

Einstein actually later rejected the belief of God. Newton wasn't always right. He locked himself away in a room for three years practicing alchemy. I won't argue that the things he was right on were outstanding and contributed to science, but he wasn't right about everything. He also believed in the Philosopher's Stone.

Believe in a God, I respect that and I don't think it makes you an idiot. But I do think fundamentalists are idiots. People who take it literally.

We are free to make fun of your beliefs, you are free to make fun of everyone else's beliefs as well. I've been harassed and called all types of names for being an atheist, but I don't care. I stand by insulting belief systems, because there are such things as blasphemy laws, and it helps prove the point that we are fortunate enough to live in a free society. That's one reason why I respect President Obama, because the President of Egypt (or some other Islamic nation) proposed a bill to the UN to outlaw all criticism of Muhammed

I think that Atheism is drawn from ignorance. The belief that there is no higher power, something that started the universe is just arrogance all by itself. Albert Einstein never rejected the idea of a god, he never supported it either. He just stated that "The universe is a beautiful place, and that it doesn't HAVE to be that way, it could be full of destruction".

By supporting blasphemy laws, you are also supporting bullying and other social problems. We live in a free society, but that doesn't give you an excuse to make other people feel bad because they don't believe in things that you

No, no it's not, and that is definitely as ignorant of a claim as I've ever heard. For one thing Atheism is not a belief, it's the rejection of beliefs. Second Atheist reject the claims that there is a god(s) because of the lack of evidence for it. How is that arrogant?
Let me paint you a scenario. I say, "Hey man President Obama is at my house right now." You'd be skeptical and ask if I can bring you over to verify that President Obama is actually there., but then I respond, "Can't you just believe that Obama is at my house? If you just have faith that he's there than that's all you need. Don't be arrogant."

Now would that argument hold up? No. Because one if Obama was at my house I could very easily show you that he was there to PROVE it

You see, that's my point. I never said that atheism was a belief, but rather THE belief that there is no higher power. Your scenario is irrelevant because there doesn't need to be any evidence for you to believe in god. The universe obviously didn't come from nothing. You could say that the big bang started the universe but there are many things that lead to the big bang theory being false, and that the matter or energy that caused the big bang could not have came from nothing.

If you hadn't realized it, people are becoming atheists because they want to feel intelligent. "Oh, you STILL believe in a god? Pfft, it's 2012! SCIENCE is the answer to everything!"

I do not support the idea of anti-science, yet I don't support anti-religion either

Yes you do need evidence to believe in God. You need evidence to support any claim that you made. I won't use the Flying spaghetti Monster, but I will say that by that logic you cannot disprove the other 2700 deities currently being worshiped, but I will say that it is arrogant for you to assume YOUR god is the one that exists.

"The universe obviously didn't come from nothing."
We don't know where it came from, but we're not substituting answers that we want. The Big Bang has already been declared a failed hypothesis for multiple reasons, but it hasn't completely been thrown out.

But now the question is this. Where did God come from? Obviously he didn't come from nothing? What are his origins? What created him?

People are becoming more agnostic and deist than Atheist. The reason why is that religion is constantly being proved wrong from evidence and research. Atheist just reject the notion of God. And you call us arrogant?
Science hasn't been able to provide us with all the answers, but it is definitely the best tool we have. The fact that you're typing this on your computer through the internet is proof of that.

anti-religion does not mean there is no God. It's standing against the fundamental ideas that religion preaches.

I myself am agnostic. But the laws of cause and affect do not apply to him as he lives in another dimension/point in time.

All your evidence for god is right there; look at the stars, the planets, etc. All this stuff had to come from something, especially since the universe is so intelligently designed. I never stated that MY god was the right one, but believing in NO gods is arrogant all by itself.

That's a cop out. Those laws still apply.

As an astronomy minor, no, that isn't good enough. All you did was demonstrate your ignorance and lack of understanding of the scientific world. And no the universe is NOT intelligently designed. There is no evidence, and by the way, there are a lot of fucked up things out there in the universe.

How is it arrogant for me not to believe in a God? How in the hell is that? Because I don't see this so called intelligent design despite being an Astronomy Minor? Despite all this? No. That's not arrogant at all, and for you to say that is utter shit.

Fairies could have created the universe. Any aspect is possible, but until you can provide concrete, logical evidence that supports YOUR claim more than, "I think it's intelligently designed," then no. You have no argument that is worth compelling me to think for one second that a God exists. And no matter how much you want to cry and call us arrogant, until you can prove otherwise, you're not getting anywhere. This is why the Academic world does not even mention God in ANY science.

You see, that's the thing. We don't know who or what god is. God could be energy for all we know. The point is, is to believe that this universe had a beginning. If this universe was not intelligently designed, we would not be here. A lot of atheists are only atheists because they want to seem intelligent. What's wrong with believing a god? Saying that the universe created itself is science contradicting science.

Until you provide evidence than there is no reason for me to believe in God. I don't care what you think God could be, I care about whether or not you can demonstrate that he exists.
We don't know about the beginning of the universe. We don't know if there was even something before the Big Bang.

"If the universe was not intelligently designed, we would not be here."
WRONG! the span we're talking about is infinity. So what was God doing those infinite years you're talking about? Two universes could have collided and formed ours. The truth is we don't know, but doing what you're doing is pure ignorance because you're forcing an answer. You tried to put a square peg in a round hole, but then decided to cut the peg into a circle. That defeats the purpose.

I never said anything is wrong with believing in God. You called me arrogant and implied something about us and what we think. I responded, but your argument is so scientifically illiterate I'm astonished you can even stand here and say half the shit you say with such confidence.

No one said the universe created itself. Did I EVER say that? No. Again we don't know, but you keep throwing out created and creation. It wasn't created. And even if the universe did create itself, then again WHERE THE FUCK DID GOD COME FROM?!?! Did he create himself? No? He always existed? Then is it possible that energy always existed? Because truthfully EVERYTHING, including matter, is actually energy

You see, this brings the entire thing back to the origin of the universe. If I stood here with a glass of water and told you that nobody created it, and that it just popped into existence all on its own, you would think I'm crazy. The same logic applies to the universe. The universe and the cup all had a beginning. If two universes collided to form ours, where did THEY come from?

Never once did I state that god was energy, because truthfully, I don't know what God is, and I will never know.

If the universe came from nothing, then god is scientifically possible, based off of your logic.

I'm not angry but I don't know how else I can get it through to you. I have to do it because for whatever reason you keep assuming that i have a stance.
"But the universe couldn't have come from nothing."

I never said it did. I never said that it didn't. I only ever said that I DON'T KNOW! But you on the other hand are assuming far too much. As an astronomy minor, I will say that there is absolutely NO evidence that the universe was created. Is it complex? Yeah it is. So what? I can show you a crystal. Would you believe someone made it? No, but I can show you exactly how they are made through nature and the process they go through.
There is EVIDENCE FOR IT. If there isn't any evidence for something than there is no reason for me to accept it as fact or that it exist. You are so hell bent on God, singular. How do you not know that it wasn't multiple beings?

You ignore and rule anything that has to do with God but insist that the universe had a beginning. Who's to say that it did? The universe we see today did, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was like this forever. We don't know, but you're so busy substituting answers because you don't understand the complexity of the universe. You're not a scientist, stop pretending to be one

I know how glass is created. I know where water comes from. I know that water is Hydrogen and Oxygen. Oxygen which is formed in the sun. I can verify how a glass is made through the evidence that is there. However, there is no evidence of a God, nor can you create a universe. Therefore you argument is invalid.
You keep assuming that the universe just pooped into existence. How many times do I have to tell you? WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW! I'm getting agitated now because you keep assuming my stance when I plain out tell you, I don't know. However, there is no evidence that it was created by anyone. There is no trace of it. Nothing, notta, zip, zilch, do you get it?
Yes it does. That's string theory that would explain that there maybe an infinite amount of universes but again it doesn't prove a God. And again why would God create an infinite amount of universes? I was using it as an example of what COULD have happened.

"Never once did I state that god was energy,"
Comment 448 " God could be energy for all we know."
No but you suggested it. You will never know what God is, but you can't even prove that he exists in the first place, so what's the point?

I NEVER FUCKING SAID THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING!!!!! ARE YOU THAT FUCKING DENSE!!! HOW MANY FUCKING GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT BEFORE IT GETS FUCKING THROUGH TO YOU!?!?!? I DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHERE THE GOD DAMN UNIVERSE CAME FROM!!!

Is it clear now? Do you get it? Do I have to repeat myself every time? Or will you finally pay attention?

What this is, is one large math equation. It's so large and complex, that no one has been able to figure out the answer. I say I don't know what it is, but I'm not going to substitute an answer. You on the other hand are looking at it and saying, "Well it definitely must be 2, or possibly a number around 2. Though we don't know what the answer is, but from what we've seen, the answer cannot be 2. Do you get it?

You are contradicting yourself. The universe has been made almost perfectly. Isn't it amazing how you could actually use numbers to create models of the universe and prove if something is physically possible? That is intelligent design. There is your proof.

How old are you? No seriously I want to know

No you still don't get it. The Universe is not perfect. It's stable. There are still many fundamentals we don't understand. You think black holes are perfect? That stars collide together? That stars die and burst forth destroying planets? That our Sun will die in 5 billion years destroying Earth? That it's rare for the Earth to even be alive today? Considering Mars should also be as green as us but had it's atmosphere stripped away?

The Universe isn't perfect son. To say so is only further proof of your ignorance. There are still so many unbalanced and unstable mechanisms in it. Math and science are our best tools to understanding it.

That is not proof. That is an argument from ignorance and a straw man. Because you insist that the Universe is perfect. It's not. There's no such thing as perfection when it comes to this. But the Universe is a very, VERY, dangerous place. We only understand about 4% of it, but what we do understand does not point to a creator.

So what if a really stupid dude saved a bunch of children from a burning building, because he had an iq lower than 90, he dosent deserve respect?
makes perfect sense

Dude, sirely you must have some self-respect? Really none at all? Dayyum

Seriously*

No idea how I got it that wrong :/

ok i just realised with this comment i insulted forrest gump... damn. im so sorry right now.

You, sir, are awesome.

circle jerk aside whats this aquinas first principle?

It's a rehash of the cosmological argument, it's been debunked hundreds of times so from reading this comment the large one was an ass but the skinny one wasn't going to say anything substantial to begin his argument anyways.

Well youre no help.

Sigh,

The cosmological argument (or the first mover argument) is basically saying that if the universe is going to have a beginning it needs a creator or a first "mover". It's a little more in-depth but this is the gist of it.

ahhh i see. thanks

Its funny because you're acting exactly like the guy in the comic.

How? I said the atheist in the comic was being an asshole but I also said the argument the theist was going to use was a useless overused one.

Because you said: "Hurr durr yur argumint sux"

Yup, I said it exactly like that.

How do you even disprove something more than once anyways?

When it is brought up time and time again by theists during debates, it must then be debunked again.

That was easy.

It sounds like theists have made you quite butthurt.

Not really, moreso insane at the ignorance they develop.

LOL! ye afeists r WEL stupit xD

If you don't read a whole comment then don't talk about it.

Well I did read the rest of it but I pointed out that part specifically because it shows how wrong you are when it comes to using human knowledge to make a basis of reality.

You wish to expand upon how you think that you have proof that god doesn't exist?

Sorry about some language, this is a copy/paste I wrote up awhile ago.

"First of all, humans are not omniscient creatures, we base our determination of existence on evidence and knowledge. It is subjective, but we have no other possibility of claiming knowledge as everything is based on an objective universe in relation to ourselves.

So, why exactly is asking "Prove god doesn't exist" a REALLY fucking retarded question? Because you cannot prove a negative, all evidence for proving a negative is in direct correlation with the LACK of evidence for the affirmative. Humans use this process for EVERYTHING (unicorns, aliens, big foot, loch ness monster, slenderman, etc etc etc) EXCEPT GOD. Why? Because they WANT it to be true. This doesn't make it true though now does it?

Also it's funny because god can only be real through absolute evidence because he is not possible through probability since he is given the wonderful attribute of creating the universe. Meaning no evidence=No god.

This means god is a exception to the rule purely by being god. I'll explain further:

> Three options of probability.
>>1.) God is not real.
>>2.) God is real, but is not bound by our laws and created the universe.
>>3.) God is real, but is bound by our laws and did not create the universe.
>>> 1 is plausible because it is the negation of a claim, this instantly takes 100% as of right now it is the only option.
>>> 2 is not plausible because the conditions by which 2 abides cause it to be an exception from probability.
>>> 3 is plausible, but in this case, the character we are talking about is not an omniscient or omnipotent god.
>>>> So if the decision is between 1 and 2, 1 is 100% plausible and 2 is 0%. If it is between 1 and 3, 1 takes 50% and 3 takes 50%, if it is between 1 2 and 3, 1 takes 50% 2 takes 0% and 3 takes 50%.

This is why absolute evidence is absolutely REQUIRED for belief in god, and exactly why non-existence is what we should concede to without it."

I disagree. I'll try to make my points as short as possible.

First off, don't try to convince someone that their question/any question is stupid. Such a statement reflects an enormous amount of arrogance and to start an argument in such a way makes you very hard to take seriously. Now:

1)- Humans use that process for "unicorns, aliens, big foot, loch ness monster, etc", sure. However, those things are confined within our observable surroundings (with the potential exception of aliens). God is a being that could exist outside of our observable surroundings, outside of our Universe, or within our Universe but on a higher Spatial Dimension. It can't be stated (with any honesty) whether any of that is true or false.

2)- God can be real without concrete evidence, and I fail to see how He's outside the realm of Statistical-likelihood.

3)- Don't forget the possibility that God created our Universe, its laws, and follows them in His interactions with us, but is hardly "bound" by them. (Just something to think about).

4)-The plausibility of an idea like God is opinionated at best. You either "think" it's plausible or you don't.

5)- Absolute evidence is never absolutely required. Theories have logical consistencies and Statistical Likelihoods, but some simply can not be proven(at least not yet). This does NOT make them any less possible though. Which means (big surprise ending) ALL RELIGION IS ULTIMATELY OPINION BASED.

However, some Religions are much more logical than others (if you approach them in an unbiased manner). Christianity (the Religion I belong to) agrees with Science much more than you might like to believe, has MANY logical consistencies, and Statistical Likelihood is HEAVILY in it's favor.(The reason I follow it)

My suggestion for you, is to research all of the Religions much more and keep an open mind. People fall into the deadly trap of "setting their mind to one side" far too often. I'd hate to see it happen to yet another bright individual.

"First off, don't try to convince someone that their question/any question is stupid. Such a statement reflects an enormous amount of arrogance and to start an argument in such a way makes you very hard to take seriously. Now: "
I said that the language was because this was from another debate and I didn't want to re-type all of this.

1.) Then that just makes your job harder by now you have to prove a higher spatial dimension before you can say god resides in it. It can be said with complete honest that this is false until it is proven, because as I said, we as humans concede to non-existence until substantial evidence is given.

2.) I just gave a long explanation of why he is excluded. He is an exception to being included to probability making the only thing substantiating his existence is faith, which is useless for determining reality.

3.) A useless thought experiment because it entirely resides on the premise of god being real. You need to prove that before you can build off of it.

4.) I'm not arguing against an idea god, because that god isn't the one people are suggesting created the universe.

5.) Ah but that is because those theories are still probable within our realm of thought and reality. God isn't, as I have already explained.

6.) Please give me scenarios where the christianity agrees with science? It goes completely against evolution, modern medicine, even the correct date of the earth. (Also please do not say that it can be interpreted differently, otherwise I will simply tell you that if something in there can be interpreted as metaphor, so can your god, and we will be done here)

I have researched many religions, which is why I find most if not all of them ridiculous.

I'll just retract my argument this time. You remind me of a "Buddhist" (he thought himself one anyway) I was talking with a few days ago. Our perception of reality/belief/etc. is too different to have a discussion that wouldn't be horribly strained.

Have a nice day friend.

I don't think you quite understand what a belief is....

I don't think you quite understand what reality is. Beliefs and reality only intertwine with evidence.

MFW you.

You really to explain sparky.

Really? You don't rationalize the word "need"? Explains alot about what you've been writing.

Here:
You really need to explain sparky.

As in, explain why that is YFW me.

well I found it interesting :/

I can't afford them, and it's very difficult to get them (the Bible not so much but still)

E-Books? PDF´s? The Washington public library in their site has ´em for free, man.

BTW, kudos to you for admit that. You won my simpaty for that.

I never thinked about that...but I like more the paper, and here in Argentina it's more easy wait for the book than looking it online, or at least that's what I usually do.
I don't need to lie man, it would be very douchie of me saying stuff I didn't do

CHE: ¿Vos sos argento tambien? o.O Nah, en ese caso acabas de ganar mi simpatia total. Sos groso, sabelo.

Jajajja, definitivamente no me esperaba esto, che

Aunque no lo creas, somos varios los que habemos aquí. No de T! o alguna bosta así...

Los que me he topado, un par son de Identi y otro mas vino aca desde 9fag.

Igual, conta con mi amistad y eso. ¡Feliz semana!

Je, Taringa se hizo re bosta, antes era copada y cada tanto se hacía algo groso, pero ahora los kim jongs y moderadores se re ortivaron y rompen mucho las bolas

Gracias che, sabelo que vos también, que te vaya bien con todo!

Quran*

And I have, and I can confirm that they are quite full of bullshit. Or in the quote of Penn Jillette "It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza."

Considering that the Qu'ran/Kuran/Coran/whatever is originally written in a completely different script (Perso-Arabic) there are in fact many correct ways of spelling it in the Latin Alphabet.

It isn't wrong, just it is one of the least common uses of spelling. However when spelling it in the more english form of construction Quran is used for legitimacy, Koran(kuran coran etc) is used more for correct pronunciation. Hence is why Quran is more common in research papers and Koran is more prevalent in news articles.

Sorry to stretch that out but basically you are correct but I was explaining my reasoning.

And I thank you for it.

The bottomline is, that, according to you, general culture Is bullshit.

Go read The Catcher in the Rye or something like that. And if you still dont like it, go read one of the books by Stephenie Meyer.

Culture is fine, claiming that culture as reality is idiotic.

Hey you actually gave me the perfect example for this! Mark Chapman said that the Catcher in the rye gave him many reasonings towards killing John Lennon. So does this mean it's true?

and yes I did read the catcher in the rye and to be honest it wasn't really all that good. Yes it touched on some strong points for its time but does that make it good? Not in the slightest. I didn't enjoy it and couldn't find anything to salvage from it.

Nah, remember: art and culture are very relative, my friend. But you cannot that say something is BS because you find it silly.

In the end, is just a matter of perspective.

Oh no, I am calling it bullshit because people claim it as reality.

I'm not watching Rudolph and telling children it's full of bullshit. However, I don't think it's uncommon for people to watch shows where someone is hunting down bigfoot or loch ness and to say "That's full of bullshit".

In the end, it's based on how ridiculous the claim is, compared to how much evidence it has and it is only called bullshit if ridiculousness is high, and evidence is low (or in this case non-existent.) and they claim it as reality.

.................did I just give an equation for bullshit?....I might need to get off funnyjunk.

Well, not ALL the people thinks that the content of this books are 100% reality. As i said in another post, there are good and bad religious people, and good and bad atheists.

Tolerance is the keyword, i think.

I really enjoyed this chit-chat. You are very wise, sir.