New bible
New bible
here is the bible. If you don't read this and live your life by it. You will go to hell!
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1
- Bringerofpie
- Fearless
- Posts: 508
- Joined: 31 May 2007 13:12
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
- Contact:
Have you heard of the censored bible? It's the bible without all of that sex and violence.
Here's a non-violent excerpt from Exodus:
"Moses went unto pharoah, 'Let my people go!' And he did."
Here's a non-violent excerpt from Exodus:
"Moses went unto pharoah, 'Let my people go!' And he did."
"Fuck it man, you just gotta do it."
Joe Snyder
Representing FLF (Fort Lauderdale Footbaggers)
http://onlycountria.myminicity.com
Joe Snyder
Representing FLF (Fort Lauderdale Footbaggers)
http://onlycountria.myminicity.com
Josh really demonstrates why I dislike religion so much. Because he's so sure that his religion is better than all the other religions and that his right while they're all wrong. There are people of all religions who have the exact same opinions, and that's why there is so much religious war and oppression in the world.
- Paul Agostinelli
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: 23 Jan 2005 14:38
- Location: Rochester NY
- Contact:
you obviously have no idea what you are discussing jeremy, click the link before you write a comment, it is most certainly a jokeJeremy wrote:Josh really demonstrates why I dislike religion so much. Because he's so sure that his religion is better than all the other religions and that his right while they're all wrong. There are people of all religions who have the exact same opinions, and that's why there is so much religious war and oppression in the world.
Precisely Mos Eisley
- Paul Agostinelli
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: 23 Jan 2005 14:38
- Location: Rochester NY
- Contact:
ORLY?Paul Agostinelli wrote:you obviously have no idea what you are discussing jeremy, click the link before you write a comment, it is most certainly a jokeJeremy wrote:Josh really demonstrates why I dislike religion so much. Because he's so sure that his religion is better than all the other religions and that his right while they're all wrong. There are people of all religions who have the exact same opinions, and that's why there is so much religious war and oppression in the world.
It's a joke at the expense of Christianity, and all of Josh's posts about religion attack Christianity. I have a strong dislike for Christianity as well, but not because I think my religion is better, but because I think all religions are false. When I do attack Christianity I try to attack it on it's merits, I don't just post meaningless trivialisations of the religion. Also lolcats are a few years old now. Repeating the same jokes over and over tends to lose humour fairly quickly.
- Paul Agostinelli
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: 23 Jan 2005 14:38
- Location: Rochester NY
- Contact:
actually, it is at the expense of the jewish bible as much as the christian one.
even if its true about josh's posts, who cares?
also, whether or not you think its funny, or whether or not its in good taste is irrelevant. you are speculating that because his previous posts on religion are attacking christianity, that this was the purpose of this thread as well. it isnt like he wrote that thing, isn't it possible that he really WAS just trying to be funny by posting something utterly ridiculous of someone elses doing?
even if its true about josh's posts, who cares?
also, whether or not you think its funny, or whether or not its in good taste is irrelevant. you are speculating that because his previous posts on religion are attacking christianity, that this was the purpose of this thread as well. it isnt like he wrote that thing, isn't it possible that he really WAS just trying to be funny by posting something utterly ridiculous of someone elses doing?
Precisely Mos Eisley
When you say all religions are false are you including about values/moral lessons they teach in that statement?Jeremy wrote: I have a strong dislike for Christianity as well, but not because I think my religion is better, but because I think all religions are false.
ie Buddhism's four noble truths, 10 commandments, ect.
Dupuy Bateman IV
That's irrelevant. How can you ascertain that any postulation is correct if the basic premise that postulate is based on has no evidence to support it. Instead of basing our morals and values on ancient fallible texts that have evolved and been reinterpreted to reflect changes in social values over centuries, I think it's far better to base our morals and values on our current understandings of humanity and ethics.
We don't need religion to decide how to treat people, and you can see that by the actions of many completely non-religious people who still maintain high moral values. If the basic premise of religion's are false and the morals they teach cannot therefore be supported, and good moral judgements can be made without religion; what is religion actually achieving?
I also think it's important to judge religion on actions rather than teachings. We should judge religion on how people's religious beliefs affect their behaviour, not solely on what their religious beliefs are. Most religions claim that it is wrong to kill people. Yet most religions still become involved in wars and killing people. The teachings aren't important, it's the behaviour of the followers that is important.
We don't need religion to decide how to treat people, and you can see that by the actions of many completely non-religious people who still maintain high moral values. If the basic premise of religion's are false and the morals they teach cannot therefore be supported, and good moral judgements can be made without religion; what is religion actually achieving?
I also think it's important to judge religion on actions rather than teachings. We should judge religion on how people's religious beliefs affect their behaviour, not solely on what their religious beliefs are. Most religions claim that it is wrong to kill people. Yet most religions still become involved in wars and killing people. The teachings aren't important, it's the behaviour of the followers that is important.
Whoa I think everyone lost sight of the big picture here.
Whenever I find myself preoccupied with minor details or petty differences of opinon, there is always my most treasured quote from teh Good Book to guide me along. It really puts everything into perspective:
"An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet. An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good."
Whenever I find myself preoccupied with minor details or petty differences of opinon, there is always my most treasured quote from teh Good Book to guide me along. It really puts everything into perspective:
"An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet. An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good."
The whole thread was a joke Jer. So aside from murdering innocent people, atheist also continue to massacre jokes at everyone's exepense.Jeremy wrote:I also think it's important to judge religion on actions rather than teachings. We should judge religion on how people's religious beliefs affect their behaviour, not solely on what their religious beliefs are. Most religions claim that it is wrong to kill people. Yet most religions still become involved in wars and killing people. The teachings aren't important, it's the behaviour of the followers that is important.
Atheism has murdered more people than religion could even begin to take credit for. So if by your standard of judging a theist or atheist based solely on actions, atheism is at a grandiose disadvantage.
Since we can't seem to just take a joke, let's throw in a source to make it interesting.
real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh D'Souza
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. –
In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."
In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
Blindly blaming religion for conflict
Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.
Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."
One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.
Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
Atheist hubris
The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."
Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.
It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
• Dinesh D'Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His new book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," will be published in January.
Wait, was your 'source' supposed to be the joke? I don't get it. That was hardly an astute analysis of Dawkins' and Harris' writings... I'm with Jeremy on this one.
Oh, and
Oh, and
LOLZ!!!!11111Dinesh D'Souza... His new book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," will be published in January.
Theodore Anderson
- Bringerofpie
- Fearless
- Posts: 508
- Joined: 31 May 2007 13:12
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
- Contact:
It is patently untrue to say that Hitler was an Atheist:
"Fuck it man, you just gotta do it."
Joe Snyder
Representing FLF (Fort Lauderdale Footbaggers)
http://onlycountria.myminicity.com
Joe Snyder
Representing FLF (Fort Lauderdale Footbaggers)
http://onlycountria.myminicity.com
-
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
-
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
- Contact:
I also think it's important to judge religion on actions rather than teachings. We should judge religion on how people's religious beliefs affect their behaviour, not solely on what their religious beliefs are. Most religions claim that it is wrong to kill people. Yet most religions still become involved in wars and killing people. The teachings aren't important, it's the behaviour of the followers that is important.
Religions don't produce actions because religions are not animate. Religions do not cause war. Religions do not fight. When bad things happen, people are responsible for the wrongdoings, not their religions. Inanimates cannot be at fault for actions of animates.
Have any non-religious people been involved in war? Hmm . . . better look that one up.
Religions don't produce actions because religions are not animate. Religions do not cause war. Religions do not fight. When bad things happen, people are responsible for the wrongdoings, not their religions. Inanimates cannot be at fault for actions of animates.
Have any non-religious people been involved in war? Hmm . . . better look that one up.
My name: Jeremy Mirken, AKA Chocolatey Shatner, AKA jerk enemy rim.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I agree with the posts above. I also think it's very important to note that unlike with the behaviour of many of the religious people mentioned in D'Souza's article, the so called atheists he mentions killed hardly any, if any, people specifically in the name of religion. There's obviously a great deal of evidence that suggests that Hitler was a Catholic, and not an atheist such as this quote;
The fact of the matter is that neither Hitler, Stalin or Mao Zedong committed their atrocities in the name of atheism. They killed religious people and atheists indiscriminately. It was not targeted killing of people for their religious beliefs, which is entirely different to events like the crusades.
It's also completely irrelevant as to whether they were atheists or not. In no way does it suggest that God actually exists or that atheism makes people do bad things. Atheism is not a philosophy that people live by. There are all kinds of different atheists with completely different views. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Most Western atheists could be described as either humanists or rationalists, two philosophical views that are intrinsically opposed to dictatorships, genocide and murder.
These kinds of attacks on atheism are ignorant and illogical, and completely miss the point of the criticism towards religion; which is that religious views are a significant direct factor in the violence and war that people attribute to it, while the so called atheists beliefs of the people they are attacking weren't the reasons behind their actions (in fact in all three cases it was nationalism, which is something many people think is essentially another form of religion - it's the irrational worship of a country instead of the irrational worship of imaginary friends).
What I find interesting about that quote, is it comes from a section of the Richard Dawkins book mentioned in D'Souza's article called; "What about Hitler and Stalin? Weren't they atheists" and it outlines the significant evidence that Hitler was a Catholic and not an atheist. I find this interesting because D'Souza is very critical of Dawkins book, and also claims that Hitler killed in the name of creating a religious free society? Did he actually read the book? If he did, is he deliberately presenting material he knows is false, because he's aiming his article at people who won't read the book? Either way, it's hard to see how he's not being intellectually dishonest.Adolph Hitler wrote:My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
The fact of the matter is that neither Hitler, Stalin or Mao Zedong committed their atrocities in the name of atheism. They killed religious people and atheists indiscriminately. It was not targeted killing of people for their religious beliefs, which is entirely different to events like the crusades.
It's also completely irrelevant as to whether they were atheists or not. In no way does it suggest that God actually exists or that atheism makes people do bad things. Atheism is not a philosophy that people live by. There are all kinds of different atheists with completely different views. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Most Western atheists could be described as either humanists or rationalists, two philosophical views that are intrinsically opposed to dictatorships, genocide and murder.
These kinds of attacks on atheism are ignorant and illogical, and completely miss the point of the criticism towards religion; which is that religious views are a significant direct factor in the violence and war that people attribute to it, while the so called atheists beliefs of the people they are attacking weren't the reasons behind their actions (in fact in all three cases it was nationalism, which is something many people think is essentially another form of religion - it's the irrational worship of a country instead of the irrational worship of imaginary friends).
Wait, are you saying religion is actually a reason to violence rather than just an excuse? Because, honestly, I believe the people killing in the name of their god would just find another excuse if religions didn't exist.Jeremy wrote:These kinds of attacks on atheism are ignorant and illogical, and completely miss the point of the criticism towards religion; which is that religious views are a significant direct factor in the violence and war that people attribute to it
Lauri Jaakkola
d'souza is an idiot, god is an idiot, hilter was an idiot, if you believe in the bible, well, ditto.
Can we end the discussion yet?
NUBS
I grow oh so weary of this yet ceaselessly I am forced to impose against my better judgement and deign to respond in these pointless pissfests
just stop thinking, save us all some trouble
Can we end the discussion yet?
NUBS
I grow oh so weary of this yet ceaselessly I am forced to impose against my better judgement and deign to respond in these pointless pissfests
just stop thinking, save us all some trouble
James McCullough