Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments
11,021 - 11,040 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11621
Feb 12, 2013
 
He was drooling over my junk I guess you do as well that's why it brought you joy.

It's ok, you know you would swallow.
LucindaW wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG! This is hilarious! Thanks for making my day!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11622
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
Religulous budget:$2.5m
Religulous box office:$13.5m
Looks like you're a lying cu*t. Again.
<quoted text>
Gee....my source says something different. Religulous made the top 10 Weekend box office dog list. What makes your source more believable than mine, other than the fact that you think it is?

http://www.deadline.com/2008/10/fridays-box-o...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11623
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee....my source says something different. Religulous made the top 10 Weekend box office dog list. What makes your source more believable than mine, other than the fact that you think it is?
http://www.deadline.com/2008/10/fridays-box-o...
You do understand that that isn't at all what your article says, right? The "dogs" is referring to a different movie (the #1 movie that weekend, actually) and the article is very complimentary of Reilgulous' box office performance.
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11624
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Both Wikipedia and box office mojo say you're a BSing cu*t. In fact, it was the highest grossing documentary of 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous#Box_o...

www.boxofficemojo.com/search/...

Whereas the link you gave me obliged me to sit through an advert, so I didn't ever see your alleged content.

Why are you always wrong?
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee....my source says something different. Religulous made the top 10 Weekend box office dog list. What makes your source more believable than mine, other than the fact that you think it is?
http://www.deadline.com/2008/10/fridays-box-o...
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11625
Feb 12, 2013
 
Thanks- I never got to the alleged content. Maybe bb doesn't understand English too well.
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand that that isn't at all what your article says, right? The "dogs" is referring to a different movie (the #1 movie that weekend, actually) and the article is very complimentary of Reilgulous' box office performance.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11626
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Well he thinks a holy man chanting an slicing people open with a filthy knife for blood letting is the exact same thing as getting blood work drawn up at a hospital. He also said he doesn't believe a god had a part in creating the universe until he realized he actually does believe that.

Religiously so.
Thinking wrote:
Both Wikipedia and box office mojo say you're a BSing cu*t. In fact, it was the highest grossing documentary of 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous#Box_o...
www.boxofficemojo.com/search/...
Whereas the link you gave me obliged me to sit through an advert, so I didn't ever see your alleged content.
Why are you always wrong?
<quoted text>

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11627
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee....my source says something different. Religulous made the top 10 Weekend box office dog list. What makes your source more believable than mine, other than the fact that you think it is?
http://www.deadline.com/2008/10/fridays-box-o...
The voices in your head do not count as a source. This is the primary reason why religion fails scientific scrutiny.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11628
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
Both Wikipedia and box office mojo say you're a BSing cu*t. In fact, it was the highest grossing documentary of 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous#Box_o...
www.boxofficemojo.com/search/...
Whereas the link you gave me obliged me to sit through an advert, so I didn't ever see your alleged content.
Why are you always wrong?
<quoted text>
You lying sack of atheist effluvium. Religulous never made the list of Best Documetary films of 2008. Of course, when your film is designed to appeal to a mere 11% of the U.S. population by misrepresenting religions for laughs, you're not going to hit the big time. Turns out, Bill Maher isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

http://documentaries.about.com/od/recommended...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11629
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The voices in your head do not count as a source. This is the primary reason why religion fails scientific scrutiny.
LOL! The only time science's fables will be accepted as credible among thinkers is when it can judge its own --->holey--- theories with the same fine discrimination it uses to examine alternate fields of endeavor.
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11630
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Where did I lie, cuntchops?

I said highest grossing. I made no comment on quality.

Whereas you said the film was a flop, which is a lie.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
You lying sack of atheist effluvium. Religulous never made the list of Best Documetary films of 2008. Of course, when your film is designed to appeal to a mere 11% of the U.S. population by misrepresenting religions for laughs, you're not going to hit the big time. Turns out, Bill Maher isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
http://documentaries.about.com/od/recommended...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11631
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand that that isn't at all what your article says, right? The "dogs" is referring to a different movie (the #1 movie that weekend, actually) and the article is very complimentary of Reilgulous' box office performance.
What's to understand? Compliments or no, Religulous was listed #10 as a weekend box office dog.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11632
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
Where did I lie, cuntchops?
I said highest grossing. I made no comment on quality.
Whereas you said the film was a flop, which is a lie.
<quoted text>
Highest grossing movie among box office flops isn't saying much.
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11633
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Five times budget means Religulous was a success, not a flop.

This is an example of a flop: An American Carol

www.avclub.com/articles/americahating-flagbur...

Budget $20m, 8 times Religulous.
Box office $7m, half of Religulous.

I haven't even seen Religulous.
With your sort composing lies just for me I really don't need to, do I?
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Highest grossing movie among box office flops isn't saying much.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11634
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

It was released in limited theaters, still outperformed big money Hollywood movies even though religious bigots were threatening theaters that wanted to play it. It was very profitable and won at least 1 award. It is listed on the top 15 greatest American documentaries of all time and was the top earner in 2008. It received positive and above average reviews even though reviewers were pressured to bash it.

It exceeded Bill's expectations and still remains a strong seller in the DVD market.
By any measuring stick you want to use, it performed well.
Thinking wrote:
Where did I lie, cuntchops?
I said highest grossing. I made no comment on quality.
Whereas you said the film was a flop, which is a lie.
<quoted text>

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11635
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
It was released in limited theaters, still outperformed big money Hollywood movies even though religious bigots were threatening theaters that wanted to play it. It was very profitable and won at least 1 award. It is listed on the top 15 greatest American documentaries of all time and was the top earner in 2008. It received positive and above average reviews even though reviewers were pressured to bash it.
It exceeded Bill's expectations and still remains a strong seller in the DVD market.
By any measuring stick you want to use, it performed well.
<quoted text>
No matter how you spin it, a class Z movie is a class Z movie. Hell, you didn't even know Religulous existed before I brought it up! LOL!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11636
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Thinking wrote:
Five times budget means Religulous was a success, not a flop.
This is an example of a flop: An American Carol
www.avclub.com/articles/americahating-flagbur...
Budget $20m, 8 times Religulous.
Box office $7m, half of Religulous.
I haven't even seen Religulous.
With your sort composing lies just for me I really don't need to, do I?
<quoted text>
You continue to miss the point. The movie was listed as a flop, which makes it a flop. It must be hard not be a sucka in your little world of lollipop ideas.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11637
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Top 15 greatest American documentaries of all time, regardless of your personal opinion.

Ask your preacher for guidance this weekend as you are twirling and shouting in tongues to Jesus.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter how you spin it, a class Z movie is a class Z movie. Hell, you didn't even know Religulous existed before I brought it up! LOL!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11638
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Top 15 greatest American documentaries of all time, regardless of your personal opinion.
Ask your preacher for guidance this weekend as you are twirling and shouting in tongues to Jesus.
<quoted text>
Your claim must be hogwash, you didn't include a source.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11639
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The birth of atheism: In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded for no reason forming self-replicating bubbles of hot air commonly known as atheists.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11640
Feb 12, 2013
 
But you don't believe some god played a role in the formation of the universe right?
BBSting wrote:
The birth of atheism: In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded for no reason forming self-replicating bubbles of hot air commonly known as atheists.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Dave Nelson 225,662
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr I can read 21,464
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 1 hr Mr Duplicity 291
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 6 hr religionisillness 104
Our world came from nothing? 6 hr religionisillness 365
The Ultimate Evidence of God 6 hr religionisillness 44
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 6 hr religionisillness 84

Search the Atheism Forum:
•••