Comments on: Christians, you are retarded. every last one, without exception.

By: scaryreasoner

scaryreasoner — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:22:45 +0000

Well, I can’t tell if you’re serious or not, maybe you’re drunk?

“Back then,” there were hardly any people we would now call atheists. The Christians were sometimes called atheists for failing to believe in the Roman gods. Prior to Darwin, the existence of intelligent life without any explanation was a pretty tough thing to get past, and so deism was where most people who today would probably be atheists found themselves.

You “hate retards,” eh? That’s a little harsh. I toss around the word “retard,” but I know that the majority of Christians are reasonably intelligent. This is what makes it all the more frustrating, that otherwise reasonably intelligent people self-inflict retardation in order to accept the lamest of “arguments” up to and including “blind faith” as the “killer” non-argument argument as a means to keep from having to reject religion. So, I don’t hate retards, and I don’t hate the faithful, but I do hate faith, in the same way that one would hate illiteracy, and a culture which would promote illiteracy as the highest of virtues.

By: anti-retarded lunatic

anti-retarded lunatic — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:23:49 +0000

christians are retarded because most of them were raised up that way. this started since jesus (who did exist but was a lunatic) preached to people with no evidence, people back then would believe ANYTHING. and all atheists were stoned to death so everyone in the province hd to be retarded, with no one to speak against christianity, it took on and made so many people retarded.

why is christianity so bad? cause i hate retards.

By: scaryreasoner

scaryreasoner — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:08:04 +0000

It’s true that I’m not a very good portrait artist.

By: Paul Willeaux

Paul Willeaux — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:50:26 +0000

Your avatar looks like downser.

By: scaryreasoner

scaryreasoner — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:27:58 +0000

I don’t think I’m always right, nor do I think know everything. If someone tells me they’ve got something in their pocket, and I say, “what it is?” and they tell me “it’s a live, African bull elephant,” I don’t have to know what it is that they’ve got in their pocket to know it sure as hell isn’t a live African bull elephant.

Christianity essentially tries to tell you something just as improbable as this.

I don’t know everything but I know that Christianity is a crock of shit.

You say it’s totally possible and did happen. How do you know that? Because a book said so? There’s this concept known as “fiction,” and another concept known as “lying.” Just because something’s written in a book doesn’t make it so. You have zero evidence for the truth of the miraculous and deistic claims made in the Bible, yet you say these things can and did happen. What reasons are there that should convince a person that these claims in the Bible are actually true? And the Bible cannot be it’s own evidence. The Bible is a book full of claims. A book full of claims is not evidence for those claims.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:44:01 +0000

It is totally possible and did happen the way its stated. Do you really suppose you know everything and are always right?

By: scaryreasoner

scaryreasoner — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:52:58 +0000

If you look in the comments, there’s another link for the video. Unlikely that this guy changed his mind, though it is within the realm of the possible — just barely.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:06:21 +0000

Thanks for responding; I stand corrected. Which leads me to this point:
If science discovers through carbon dating or by whatever means used that the earth existed more than 6,000 years (or however long the christians believe it exitsted) then the christian’s response is that science is wrong.

I see that the video “has been removed by the user”. Maybe he saw the light!

By: scaryreasoner

scaryreasoner — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:27:56 +0000

To be fair, "the climate" isn't too far off the mark. Peoples who've lived in the tropics for ages more typically evolved dark skin, to prevent low folate levels, while peoples nearer the poles evolved lighter skin to combat low vitamin D levels (with some exceptions, e.g. Inuit get enough vitamin D from their mostly fish-based diet, enabling to retain relatively dark skin.) See: Human Skin Color (wikipedia)

By: Johnny

Johnny — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:52:56 +0000

If you REALLY want to piss off christians, ask them how people of different races evolved, supposedly created by god “in his own image”. I ask a minister this question and his answer was “the climate”. No, I’m not joking.

How fucking retarded is that?