A short, informative piece I dragged out of the archives explaining one of society’s little foibles….Religion!
Motorcycle Cover
Help for cover letter writing
reflux symptoms
Pros And Cons Of Solar Energy
wooden chess
A short, informative piece I dragged out of the archives explaining one of society’s little foibles….Religion!
Motorcycle Cover
Help for cover letter writing
reflux symptoms
Pros And Cons Of Solar Energy
wooden chess
OMG this was so hilarious. BRAVO. loved it
@pommepot Thanks for watching 🙂
You can follow all of the adventures of Thaddeus Cheesecake now on his Facebook page!
This is the best, most witty, most inspiring, most touching ( religion taught man who to hate point) clip i have ever seen! Humour is always the best way to go, but reading the comments below i see soe people have still missed the point lol! Bravo this is wonderful, so hilarious, and it shall be shared far and wide from here on in my friend!
This reminds me of Fallout 2. Great video.
MORTAL KOMBAT FIGHT!!!
@Jyotinanda108 Nice double entendre.
this is all well and good, but very black n white.
Fair enough 🙂
Viewed as sattire based on intentional ignorance I would say that it is actually quite amusing. Sure!
Personally, I wouldn’t make a satire based on a person’s meaning system because a persons identity is often tied more closely to it than their ethnicity or gender.
Heartless sarcasm can hurt more than physical bruises.
Someone out there will be unintentionally hurt.
No, but I see your intentions and I compliment your wit and creativity.
As the author of this piece I think I can explain what RiddlerJimmyRiddle means….this is merely a mock-up, it’s supposed to appear misinformed and ignorant…no part of it should be taken seriously and any omissions merely enforce the supposed narrow-mindedness of it….it’s sattire. Enjoy it 🙂
Do you think so? I would respectfully disagree.
Acknowledging the main theme, I merely commented on one aspect of the clip.
My point was that no-one should buy into the myth that either religious or non religious ideological certainty is attainable.
We all benefit by the free exchange and open minded consideration of everyone’s ideas.
If you’d want to further explain which point I’ve missed, I do have an open mind.
Dude, I think you are missing the point somewhat….
Hilarious! You should put music in the background. Try looking for old college football anthems. That would go perfectly.
Hey, Not bad, that was well animated.
I Should just point out that your examples of Religion were only occidental types of Religion(Western). Not all religions have a humanistic deity they call God, consider oriental religions like Buddhism or Taoism.
Everyone has an ideology or belief system, (If you take on Emile Durkheim’s definition you might say everyone’s Religious)
You have a right to your ideology. I just recommend you maybe draw from Science (eg. Sociology) & share with respect ^_^
Bias is an interference of preference in being impartial. The goal of engaging in an argument is to win. Hence, impartiality is not a factor in the agents in an argument (or bias for that matter). Its predicates are. I never said any of those things, read the comments I left (there were so many of them because I was able to decimate your position that badly) if you want to stop looking dogmatic. My position is stated clearly. Put down your ontological bias and argue like an adult.
25 pages? It was a scant few paragraphs you silly child. You have failed to argue for a standard and scope of evidence. I have. Therefore, what I am saying is not conjecture, and what you are saying is. I have debased your sources already. You are the one sitting there giving debased evidence and going alalalala=> you are the one who belongs in a religious forum, since you argue like one.
It’s one thing to fill up a few comment boxes but 18 at the same time? THEN a 25 page personal message? All conjecture on top of that? I don’t possess the patience to read your garbage. Maybe you should subscribe to a pro-religion forum or something? I gave you the sources and lucky for me, they include most the wars in history and provide facts to back up my claim that God is the #1 reason for war – according to history. Everything else you’ve said is conjecture. Purely speculative and unproven
lol according to you. Bias much? When you started telling me that “objectivity is subjective” and that “science is not the best method” and that “people should use a psych crutch aka God to help them in life”… I started ignoring you. It’s like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. You write 20 replies and THEN send me a 25 page personal message. Do you really think I’m going to read it? Do you really think that this means that you won the argument? You can believe whatever you like little girl.
I need an outlet for my anger? lol you are the one writing in allcaps you noob. pwned
You have sources (which are not comparative in the slightest and are hence useless) and you infer non-sequiters from them.
It is, as I have explained thoroughly. If my logic was such epic fail you would have no problem attacking it. Rational and critical thinking (i.e. reductionist logic) are not up for debate. Whether science is objective is. Not the same thing. Already stated my sources (only needed 2 since your argument was so simplistic and weak). Responded to your earlier accusation that I think or say Hitler and Stalin are wars, point disregarded.
Nope, because you cant. I have argued circles around you and you have lost the argument.
I’ve stated my sources. I have facts to back them up. All you have is needless conjecture.
Science is not subjective. The scientific method is the best method at determining these things. Rational and critical thinking is not open for debate by anyone I know. Your logic is epic fail.
You attacking me is not going to prove your point. In fact, you’re not even trying to prove your point. Your just avoiding stating your sources. Oh wait, you’re the guy that thinks “HITLER AND STALIN” were wars… when in fact, they were people, and one of them was a Christian!
Do you actually think for one second I’m going to sit here and read 18 replies from you? You need a fucking outlet for your anger. I told I was finished with this conversation.
EVERY SINGLE THING YOU HAVE SAID THUS FAR IS CONJECTURE – WORLD VIEWS THAT CAN NEVER BE PROVEN MUCH LESS EVER BE ACCOMPLISHED. YOU FAIL.
Scientists criticize their theories while using their subsisting theorems and methods to test new theories. Hypocritical? I think not. For all your silly ad hominems alluding to the lack of logic used by your opponents, you don’t even know that this aspect of empirical methodology (falsification) is the only deductively valid use for it. I use logic to determine the limits of science, and I use science in its relevant areas to come to conclusions.