5 years ago 2 years ago That moment when he realized he screwed himself. by Admin 5 years ago2 years ago Post PaginationPrevious PostPreviousNext PostNextLike it? Share with your friends! 173 173 points RobbieDobbie Never go full retard Jessica Is this from religulous? MikeM7 Yes Jessica I love that movie. But its been awhile since I’ve seen it. My god-fearing mother-in-law refuses to watch it. Says my husband and I are gonna go to hell. NotMark BLASPHEMER!!! http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/2230/sutherland.gif Jessica almost. Lol phyucking naggers While I believe in evolution, I really hate how the internet pick and chooses things to love and hate. Fags, atheism, and white racism are all among the things it’s okay to talk about. But if there were ever a religious post it gets downvoted like crazy and bashed. The internet is liberal, and while liberals claim to be open minded and understanding. It’s clearly the opposite. However; funny post while still being liberalsnaps. Well done. Kenneth Lien You’re making a lot of assumptions here. You can be liberal and bigoted, or conservative and open-minded. And having an open mind doesn’t mean you need to believe in fairy tales cooked up in the stone age, translated hundreds of times and then cherry picked at will. And calling gay people fags is kind of like calling a black man n*gger, so I wouldn’t pride myself on being open minded if I were you. The man that did that thing I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word ‘liberal’. It doesn’t mean ‘accepting of everything’. It certainly doesn’t mean ‘accepting of stupidity’. The reason religious posts get bashed is because religion is not based on logic, and is therefore an easy target. That has nothing to do with liberalism. Liberal also isn’t the opposite of conservative, which is something I find very odd (and quite unhealthy) about American politics and the way they divide people like that. It’s possible to be both liberal and conservative. The opposite of conservatism is more accurately socialism – though even that can have some cross-over. Phyucking naggers Thank you well said. I’m commenting towards the general attitude of the population though. They can support gay marriage, but can’t accept it when someone disagrees. To anal, no that’s not true. It’s a trend on every website. What we see here on the hotpage is the most popular of ideas. Thus the general majority of the people that browse these sites. Liberal is to democrat as conservative is to republican. I’m not misunderstanding anything. Kenneth being open minded is accepting other peoples ideas without trying to change their opinions in anyway. Being able to argue on both sides as you understand them equally. It just shows ignorance when people hear one side of the story and stick with it because that’s what they heard first. NotMark I think you have completely misunderstood what defines an open mind. Being open minded does not mean accepting other people’s ideas regardless of how incorrect or ridiculous they are. An open mind refers to the ability to recognise facts and allow them to change your own viewpoint accordingly. An open mind is open to facts; reason and logic not open to absolutely everything that anyone thinks. Rev. Analbumcover To an extremist, the majority, which define the center of the political spectrum, seem far to the opposite side. You’re not really saying anything about this site or people in general, you’re really telling us about yourself and where your own viewpoint is based. Frank Thebunny I stop you right here and right now, Internet is highly conservative : look at the ipV4, it takes a very long time before we use ipv6. Or look at ie6 samething. Or the time the W3C take for add new thing , don’t tell me Internet are liberal. MikeM7 Things that are retarded get bashed, and most religious posts are retarded. Kind of like cruel, unnecessary racism or homophobia. It’s retarded, so it gets bashed out of society. It’s just how progress works. Those that get mad over progress are basically less evolved and behind the times. Whatever counter arguments you may have, you can’t deny that in an ideal world there is equality, peace, and love for everyone. You can’t have that scenario with racism and homophobia, which happen to be backed by religious scripture. Religion has also been crippling scientific growth for centuries. Basically, we’re just trying to get rid of bad things and make the world a little better. http://yukigitsune.tumblr.com/ Yuki-Hime That was one of my favorite parts eheh Bobby Kelso The two biggest things I learned from this movie was don’t fuck with Mormons, and Muslims like Led Zeppelin. Frank Thebunny And an asian officer will come to save you Guest I thought it was a great documentary, but the fact that something so simple cannot be explained (if it could be then people would have dropped the Bible/Quran/etc.) is a mystery in itself. Perhaps it hides the dark truth that simple lies need to be told to keep the human mind enslaved? Are we still subject to that in modern times? I believe so. m4a4 It all depends on how you look at it… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epVDSl8-KT4 lerk That’s awesomely stupid… lets take a process that takes millions of years and complain it can’t be observed. Guess what also can’t be observed? The middle ages! Guess believing in that takes faith, too. The man that did that thing Also, observation doesn’t mean having to be there as it happened. Observation is taking into account all the physical evidence of a process. We can’t observe with our eyes the neutrons and protons in an atom, but we know they’re there because all the evidence points to them. And anyway, evolution CAN be observed today. It can be observed in rapid life-cycle creatures like bacteria. It can be observed in diseases like the flu virus. It can be observed in the selective breeding of cattle animals. m4a4 All of what you said was mentioned against in the video. I suggest you rewatch it and listen to the part where bacteria are not a good example (and how you cannot observe a bacteria becoming something other than bacteria, as observable evidence for evolution)….. The whole point is that atheists are blasting religion on blind faith, when core beliefs of atheists are taken with blind faith, but seen as fact (hypocrisy) The man that did that thing Sorry, but no. This guy cutting people off and saying they’re wrong doesn’t make it so. This is not a scientific video, it is a propaganda video, and should be taken as such. The video doesn’t address any of the issues he’s stating, most of which aren’t even issues. ‘Kind’ is not a scientific term, except as something he or someone like him has made up to try to trip people up. So his argument against evolution of bacteria is also wrong. Read this for information about creationist non-arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Misuse Also, taking the long pauses of students who don’t even study paleontology as evidence that evolution is wrong is just dishonest. As is this whole video. m4a4 Hahahaha, you missed the point (again) about how it can take blind faith to believe in evolution (and believe it as fact). And that link only points out speculations, and is heavily biased (you should know that Wikipedia is good for highschool homework, and not as a backbone for argumentative points). The man that did that thing I haven’t missed your point, I just didn’t feel it was a point worthy of addressing because of its irrelevance in the larger argument. But if I must. ‘Blind’ faith (which is what belief in a religion is, since there is no evidence to support the claims made by any of them) is not the same as belief that people who have exhaustively studied a subject have the best answers. You could just as easily say all of science is ‘blind faith’ because you haven’t personally observed any of the processes described by science actually working. And you would be equally incorrect. Have you been up into space and seen that the world is round? No? Well then, everyone that has must be lying to you. Have you ever seen the heart of an atom, the protons and neutrons that make them up? No? Must be scientists lying to you. ‘Blind faith’ is a stupid term to apply to any field of science. Please stop. With regards to the link I provided, Wikipedia is as good as any other written source. It follows the same model of research and citation as any book in a library. The only difference is it is more able to change with current knowledge. In fact, in a lot of ways it’s better than that, because people with dissenting voices can post corrections, or updates, providing they have the right evidence. It is the perfect jump off point for further investigation as it summarises said evidence succinctly and is, by and large, written by experts in the field. I think you’re stuck in highschool yourself if you believe highschool is all it’s good for. But by all means provide refutations to anything said within that Wikipedia page. Contribute to the page itself if you have evidence to do so. Dan Mackinlay *crickets* The man that did that thing I don’t think I’ve ever received an upvote so long after the fact. Thanks! 🙂 Dan Mackinlay I’m catching up on old posts 😉 pickme What? Really!? Clever, but that’s logical fallacy. And I like how he’s specifically picking young college students. m4a4 I like how you are only picking up on the college students and not the professors that are asked (Like one of the first people asked) pickme The college kids; he tries to make look like idiots, which is the majority if the footage. The other knowledgeable older folk, he just cuts them off. I like how their expression is kind like “are you fucking idiot” to the interviewer, but he attempts to just cut them off to make it appear as if they’re at a loss…bwa-hahahahahaha m4a4 Yeah. Sure. Cuts them off……. that’s what we’ll go with… pickme Really? You’re really serious about that video? As in, you think that video has any sort of validity? NotMark This is one of the worst arguments I have seen on this subject. It asks a loaded question and confuses observable evidence with an observable event. Evolution is not a belief, it is fact supported by quantifiable evidence. Evolution does not rely on anyone to believe in it as whether you accept it or not, it is still fact supported by countless pieces of observable evidence in fossil records and geology. The transitional forms of evolution to which the question is aimed cannot provide the kind of evidence requested because by its very nature it is transitional. The process is very subtle and over a very long time period. The kind of evidence that it does provide is in the form of DNA links and progressive fossil changes. The irony that religion would even consider basing an argument around the premise that if you cannot observe a process, how can you know it happened is amazing. The whole ‘I don’t understand so therefore god did it’ argument is just ridiculous and also impossible to argue against. Not only do religious people require no evidence, they even convince themselves that evidence which disproves their belief is false. It is not a rational stand point and as such it is impossible to argue against. The only argument you can offer to a religious person who cannot accept evolution as facts is “If you refuse to accept evolution as fact, don’t you wish that the alternative explanations were less ridiculous and didn’t rely on the Earth being 5 thousand years old, talking snakes, aliens in a galactic battle and boats that can hold over 10 million species of plant and animals?” Blabla The fact religious people can’t get this baffles me, the human mind is a strange thing. … The fact that religious people get taught about evolution, and many believe in evolution guided by a higher being. But like with most things the loud and stupid ones are the most seen and the most talked about 🙂 Mehdi Yasaee Religious people deny fact. Lowne Wolfe You know those arguments you formulate in your head and you win via crushing defeat…and real world ones never go that way…well this one was perfect Justin sup with all the religion bashing pictures today? Some atheist get his partner stolen by a religious man?