@ElGorcho It's really hard to portray these points humorously. It's way harder than it looks. And I don't think you should criticize his degree of comedy until you take the same concepts and rant about them humorously. If you do, post it on your channel.
@DaveDooval You see, that's not the point. The point is he tried and failed. Badly. Now when someone puts their work onto the airwaves they are craving for a reaction, positive or negative. And he got one out of me. Just not the one I think he was going for. I don't have the produce anything to be able to criticize it, just like I don't have to produce anything to appreciate something either. Comedy is an open form of expression and it's purposes is to elicit further open forms of expression.
And yet you Miller continue to support the republicans. What a self serving little man you must be. I find that fact that your career has gone nowhere no excuse for your prostitution to the religious right. Nonetheless, that is exactly what you've done. Please do the world a favor and shut up. There is nothing noble about ripping off the unwashed masses.
People are responsible for their own actions. But, the great Evangelist of the world would differ with my opinion. Why? Because if they agree, then' s there' s no money for them. Do you really think that Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen or for that matter Sandra Kennedy does it for God? Tell them they have to do it for free and see how fast they disappear. But, they' re talking for God. Damn, so many people talking for God.
I wish I could be humorous about religion but I cant. Religion is murder, rape, lying, oppression, misogyny. Religion hates freedom, life, Humans, safety, peace, intelligence, love. All religion is all bad all the time for everyone everywhere in the past present and future. A future that will be short, frightening and fraught with Human suffering. Don't be a craven coward. leave religion out of your life. Those that are religious, you need to regain your Humanity again.
@Puberis Christianity is not responsible for humanitarian efforts, it is merely another group of people that are part of it. The only question I have for religious people who gloat about their time donated, or help provided to the community, is why do you need the "God" excuse to do something humane? So many people just do good to others naturally...
@puberis And I understand that. You have your faith, and you are entitled to it, and I have no right to attempt to rid you of it. But if I redirect your attention to my core argument, which is that it's reasonable and demonstrable that the Bible (and especially the Qur'ān) can be read and understood to be justifiable of and inciteful to violence, then I beseech you accept that one way to ensure this violence is never actualised is to disregard and denigrate these religions themselves.
A christian, a jew, a hindu, and a scientologist stand before me. They all believe their "god" is the true "god". I ask them "Prove your "god" exists". Notice I didn't say prove "god" exists, I said prove YOUR "god" exists. The only answer I expect to get is, "Prove he doesn't exist!". I expect this answer because none of them can prove their "god", or any other "god" exists. Proving one "god" exists, disproves all the other "god"s existence.
@RageAgainstNWO Good ol' Jesus. His endeavors in the NT makes Christianity like totally 10 times better than Judaism! Well, here's Jesus for you: "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds." Revelation 2:22-23
@Tredicity ...and? He won't abide sin. He won't abide others coming in a corrupting the church. What's your point? Rage's point still stands -- Jesus said He'd deal with the sinner, as opposed to other "prophets" advocating the slaughter of non-believers. I think you missed the mark on that one...
@puberis You have misunderstood me. Those verses weren't intended to illustrate that Jesus advocates the slaughter of non-believers. They were intended to discredit the notion that Jesus is a shining beacon of moral integrity that elevates Christianity above Islam on ethical grounds. The verses I chose demonstrate Jesus's intention to murder a woman's children for her sins. Now, that mark, the mark I was aiming for, I hit.
@Tredicity Ah, I see. But you still misunderstand. That verse was a message to the church at Thyatira. The woman was a prophetess who was misleading the church into doing things forbidden by God. Often times, adultery was likened to idol worship, since God is the true "husband". As such, people who helped her message were committing adultery by forsaking God, and Christ said the followers of those ways ("children") would face judgment. In other words, he wouldn't turn a blind eye to their sins.
@Tredicity Careful, you're admitting Jesus Christ exists. If he doesn't, then it's not murder because he doesn't exist to carry it out. Two things: 1.) YOU are the outsider here. I don't explain fluid dynamics to a civil engineer, and an atheist can't explain Christianity to a Christian. I'm explaining the metaphor to YOU. 2.) If Christ exists, he is God, and therefore the giver of life. He alone contains the essence of being, and he gave it to us. So, he can't murder if life is his to give.
@puberis No. Stop. You cannot know God more so than any human being. You haven't undergone apotheosis and haven't established a direct channel to the consciousness of the Creator. You are just as senseless as the rest of us. You and I have both read the words of the Bible, and are both qualified to ascribe meaning to those words. When I read Christ, your saviour, say, "I will kill her children", I regard it as profoundly immoral and discard it as too evil to be true. Why can't you do the same?
@Tredicity I can know. Read Plato. Just because I haven't become a table, doesn't mean I can't understand what a table is. Furthermore, as a Christian, I know God to be the God written of in the Bible. As such, I know Scripture to be his spoken word -- his revelation of himself to us. We Christians live our lives studying what he has said. You think in your 20+ years you can undermine 5000+ years of Jewish and Christian thought and understanding? You're the outsider who doesn't understand.
@puberis I've read Plato, and I refuse to get into a nuanced philosophical argument with you. Put tersely, you can understand a table because it exists in the physical world. God doesn't, so you can't "know" Him. That is all I will say on the matter, and I kindly point your attention back to the fact that I'm using your scripture, which you regard as our one, true source to the mind of God, to tell you why it is evil and can be interpreted to justify murder.
@Tredicity Then read Descartes as well. Your point fails. Pegasus doesn't exist, but I understand that. You can interpret many things to say exactly what you want them to say, which is what you are doing. You're twisting my Scripture to say what you want it to say, despite my telling you what it really means. There's a reason you paste one "shocking" line as "evidence", and not the whole passage in context. The less people read, the less likely they are to understand and question your point.
@puberis I'm so grateful you mentioned Pegasus, because he illustrates this point exceptionally. You are purporting to know God, and more so than I'll ever be able to. The fact is, you, and everyone else on this Earth, can understand Pegasus to precisely the same degree. If I were to submit to Pegasus and believe in his teachings, there is still absolutely no way that I can "know" Pegasus any more than you. And you're just as qualified as I to criticise and reject him.
@Tredicity I agree, but only if there weren't Pegasus teachings. If there was a Pegasus Bible out there that was supposedly the word of Pegasus, then you'd still have to differ to those who followed it and studied it. It's called canon--the definitive way of understanding it. In a sense though I do differ to your point. I do know God only in-so-much as he's revealed himself through his word. Of course man in this world can't fully understand the infinite, but we don't need to.
@Tredicity But my point is still that you can't argue your interpretation of what is written when Christianity itself has studied and said what it means. That's why we condemn evil men and women protesting outside soldier's funerals. And as I've tried to say to glennheston, there is a measure of faith that goes into it. Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether he believes and accepts it as truth, or rejects it as falsehood. As Aquinas said, it's reason and revelation. Faith and the mind.
@puberis I'm glad you agree on this point, so I respectfully request you cease engaging in argumentum ad hominem. Please stop criticising my argument on the grounds that I am an atheist. I am just as qualified, as are all human beings, to make deductions concerning the words of your scripture. When I read Christ's words, "I will kill her children", I infer that Christ intends to kill, and my conclusion is Christ tolerates murder and can therefore justify evil. This is not fallacious reasoning.
@Tredicity It is not an ad hominem attack. I respect you. I haven't had this civil a debate in a long time. Here's what I'm saying: You can't say I'm wrong about what we Christians define as canon. I'm saying you are twisting scripture to your ends, just like people with "God Hates Fags" signs use it to their ends, or greedy Popes to theirs. Both interpretations are wrong. It's like talking to the author of a novel and telling him what he meant when he wrote it. It's ridiculous.
@puberis I will never designate a notion to be false unless I have evidence to prove otherwise, and on an alternate note I posit you should be mindful that it would be prudent for you to do the opposite. Another point I'll proffer is that it's a reasonable stance to adopt that one needn't give credence to a notion until it's been proven to be true. And where one cannot do this, I accept you'll invoke that a measure of faith is required.
@Tredicity Your point about canon: true to a point, but there are plenty of notions that are defined as heresy among all denominations. Your propositions being some of them. There are clear-cut doctrines. I agree only that people can make anything out to mean what it want them to. But what's true is the meaning the speaker wanted to convey, and I've explained what Christ was saying. Whoever tries to justify violence through them is clearly wrong, and Christianity does not condone it.
@Tredicity I respect you for your respect as well. Many atheists and rationalists make it their life's work to destroy anyone who holds faith. Many times it doesn't matter. I do my math just as well. But why do you assume I haven't put my religion to the test? I've walked many roads, and thought many thoughts. Reason led me to believe there is a god, and things that have happened in my life have pointed me to Christ as that god. As we've said, reason can account for so much.
@Tredicity Faith was the recognition of Christ as the deity that I've come to believe existed. It's submission to something higher than you. A daily act. You said: " I beseech you accept that one way to ensure this violence is never actualised is to disregard and denigrate organised religion itself." I wholeheartedly disagree. Organised religion plays a role in halting violent heresies from popping up. It's where people like me come from, who argue against heresy and set straight the truth.
@Tredicity One quick comment to end this night: If the Bible could possibly be used to insight violence because somebody took it the wrong way, then you can make the same argument for anything that's ever been written. Those Norse sagas had some play with the Norwegian church burnings I'm sure. You'll have a hell of a time censoring everything. Especially those old Greco-Roman myths. All that incest! Again, case by case. Mein Kampf? Burn it. We know that wasn't metaphor. Not so with the Bible.
@Tredicity So in effect a sub-point of yours is correct--people can take things out of context and use them for violent aims (as you have done with those scriptures, only you use them for the accusation of violent aims). But, you have not the authority to claim that those scriptures are violent, because 2000 years of Christianity states they are not advocating violence, but are metaphors to convey a point. Just because people can take things a certain way, doesn't mean it's the correct meaning.
@puberis There is no correct meaning. There is no canon. If there were canon, there'd be no Protestants and Catholics, Sunni and Shi'a. We are all human beings, we all don't know the mind of God, and we all must infer His meaning through scripture. When I present these verses to you, I am not twisting. I have clearly defined my premise, my inference and my conclusion. And by way of acknowledging that my logic is sound, you are agreeing that these verses can justify evil if interpreted as I have.
@puberis Your statement, "Just because people can take things a certain way, doesn't mean it's the correct meaning" resonates with me, and I'd like to focus on it because I feel it profoundly important to ponder. Please, take this moment to note that I have never said your religion is false. Many atheists do and that is their undoing.
@Tredicity Many cults are organised religions, and should be disbanded. If a large group of Christians ever did take to your interpretation, you and I will be on the same side to stop it. Just like with the Westboro Baptist Church (You're in the UK? I mentioned this before without knowing that. Look it up if you have time. Horrible.) But in the modern era organized Christianity is responsible for many humanitarian efforts, because it is organized. So I posit to you to take things case by case.
@Tredicity Being metaphors, the verse in Luke used the image of a king slaying his enemies to illustrate the image of Christ judging the world and throwing his enemies into Hell (true death). The same with Revelation. You're the one interpreting. I'm telling you what it means. If you are unable to understand simple metaphor, I can only try to help you see past them. In this weak age where people don't like to take a moral stand, I can see where the concept of judgment is foreign to you.
@puberis Do you see what you just did there, in interpreting Revelation 2:23? Do you see what your religion is making you do? It's making you rationalise and explain away MURDER. Stop using phrases like "face judgment" when your Bible uses "strike dead", and your interpretation of "children" is irrelevant. Your saviour, Jesus Christ, MURDERS PEOPLE. And you're sitting there, explaining it to me and justifying it. You follow a murderer, and your religion is evil. You are evil.
@puberis However, I do thank you for offering me an opportunity to hit another mark; namely, Jesus's advocation of the slaughter of non-believers. I will hit this mark using words uttered by your saviour Jesus Christ – the person by whom your model your morality – according to your holy scripture, the Bible – the book by which you live your life: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 19:27)
@Tredicity You can't take a sentence out of context. This line is part of a parable. It uses a situation to show a truth. Here it stated that God set up Christ as king, but he went away from the kingdom for a while and entrusted his servants to take care of it. On Judgement Day in the future, he will return and there will be an accounting. He'll reward his servants according to what they've done, and his enemies will be cast into Hell. It say what he WILL do, not what we should do now. Got more?
Woah, woah, woah, Mr Miller. Don't pretend firing guns is only justifiable by Islamic dogmatism. Your Bible justifies exactly the same kind of irrational violence against adherents to all other faiths:
"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3)
@Tredicity Christians don't follow the laws of the OT, Jesus fulfilled the law.....we follow the words of Jesus Christ. You wont find Jesus telling anyone to kill anyone. Muhammad allowed his followers to kill non-belivers, and take the women as sex slaves.....when Jesus disciples wanted to burn down a village for not accepting Jesus, he rebuked his disciples, and left the village in peace.
If your religion is true, then you SHOULD force it on people. Sure you might be annoying them here on earth, but there's a chance that you could save their soul for ETERNITY!
@CambridgeHeights If your religion is true, you shouldn't HAVE to force it on people. It should be so blindingly obvious, there should be no other tenable choice. That there are so many thousands of sects within different ideologies speaks volumes.
@MrDelirious No religion that I know of claims to be 'blindingly obvious'. They generally command the followers accept it on faith and spread the 'good news', the 'truth', the 'way', etc.
@CambridgeHeights There is no true religion without the burden of truth. Some me proof without using the religious text of your religion, and ill believe.
Fanatics bring such a bad name to religion. Every time that I have had a discussion with an atheist, they criticize everything that is done by fanatics, not by true followers of religion. By trying to impose their beliefs, not only do they miss out on loving others and growing spiritually, but they also make non-believers hate religion... perhaps that is why so many people nowadays hate religion so strongly.
I once dated a woman whose parents would not let her see the movie Aladdin when she was a kid because they did not like the presence of magic in the movie (the genie, the magic carpet, the lamp). Talk about zealouts!!
@papersplease i think you mean the religious right. the tea party is a fiscally conservative, socially neutral organization, commonly misconstrued to be an evangelical, even racist one.
there are many religious people in the tea party, probably even some racists, but just because a dachshund is a dog doesn't mean all dogs are dachshunds.
Fundamentalists see all aspects of the Bible as simultaneously equally true, a stance that is unsupportable by any logic. Thoughtful Christians see that there must be a hierarchy of truth, with words spoken by God/Jesus at the top and words and actions of people at the bottom. When questioned about divorce laws of Isreal, Jesus specifically said that these laws were only included in ancient canon "due to your hardness of heart." God's perfect will is not always represented.
even when i don't agree with Dennis Miller, it's simply a pleasure to hear his eloquence and to hear a person in the semi-popular mainstream who speaks intelligently.
Interesting. Miller supported the Iraq war, a war Bush instigated because "God told [him] to." Miller seems to like religious fundamentalism, which has confused me since I have now seen a youtube video where he rails against it. Hm.
Well, I was in high school, but you have to look at every situation in it's time (we needed an ally against Iran....still do). Once he gets too big for his britches, take him out. My point was that killing Saddam had nothing to do with "religion", and everything to do with justice.
@maxxrexx Isn't ALL religion nothing but fanaticism ?? Do these preachers on my sunday TV actually belive that god is working through them to create miracles such as improved hearing, relieving back pain and other pains? Is that all OUR GOD is good for? A class C miracle ? Why don't the REAL religions clamp down on the Sunday miracle workers?? Because they are practiceing the same type of fraud. That's my story and I,m sticking to it. Why are we catagorized as a christian nation
@trier4952 So, he was funny when he was pointing out conservative absurdities, but not when he points out liberal absurdities? I thought he was funny both ways, he still aims an honest eye at our world.
This is great! He seems really insightful and fair-minded. It reminds me of why I used to like him a lot.
Did he cross over to the other side before or after this?
I've never heard him say anything this funny on Fox. I wonder if he ever would say those things on Fox. They never criticize the religious right, and I don't think they like the word "tolerence."
@melora72 Nobody likes tolerance, it means they have to accept an opinion against their own and 98% of people are too hard headed to listen to or even acknowledge that they might not have the right answers. I say if you are going to jab at one network, you should be ready to jab at them all because they are all pretty damn one sided and closed minded, much like their viewers. then again, I have no hope for anyone who gets their information from an idiot box, be it the TV or the computer.
oh man his comedy is golden, not that I laugh my ass off every time, but it makes me chuckle and think and I'd trade in his political right leaning rants in for this older Dennis Miller any day, I mean I don't want to get off on a rant here but....
@llamaBPpotatoFT "especially those not ready to except it," Really? Why do you think anyone who doesn't believe in any "god", just hasn't accepted it yet? I've never believed, and will never believe in any "god". No, you don't get to say I will someday, that won't happen.
@glennheston Dude I'm not saying anything about you, I'm just making a general statement. If a person doesn't feel evidence supports a belief and comes from a background that rejects it, then trying to convince him of it or force it on him is just stupid and annoying. Just like a democrat trying to argue a liberal view to a conservative or vise versa. And if someone doesn't want to believe in something or feels no need to believe in something, he isn't going to be convinced anyway.
@glennheston Reason dictates that someone not believing in a god hasn't accepted the god, does it not? You can't accept something and not at the same time. You haven't accepted a god, therefore you don't believe in a god. Just like I haven't accepted string theory, therefore I don't believe in it. Any belief in a god needs a measure of faith. I can't prove my brake pads are always on my car, but I have faith they will stop my car when I push the pedal. I don't really know what your point is...
@puberis "Reason dictates that someone not believing in a god hasn't accepted the god, does it not?" Reason does not dictate anything of the sort. And you saying it does won't change that. The great thing about any science, is that it doesn't need you to believe it for it to be true. I can prove your brake pads are on your car, and faith won't change them when they need it. Only an idiot would "have faith" that their car was working properly.
@glennheston Yikes, pick up a logic book. It'll do you well. I don't know how you can argue that not accepting doesn't mean not believing. You can accept something that's not true, and then you believe it. And vice versa. Do I really need to explain this? And you can't prove my brakes are on my car when I'm going 70 down the freeway, until I press them and they work. They could've fallen off. But I trust they will work when I press the pedal. One has faith/trusts that things will go as planned.
@puberis You believe in a sky daddy, and you have the nerve to speak about logic! I not only do not accept your inane religious beliefs, I don't believe them either! No, I can't accept something that isn't true. If it's not true, then it's not true. I can prove your brakes are on your car every time I hit the brakes. I trust, only an idiot has faith. There are differences in the two words, that's why there's two different words.
@glennheston I would say only someone suffering OCD wouldn't have faith their car was working properly. Do you pull over every 5 minutes and prove everything is safe? You take for granted (meaning "trust' or "have faith") that things that are expected to happen will happen. That's why "surprise" is defined as something out of the ordinary that you didn't expect. Are you so afraid of giving any credence to any religion that you now sacrifice common sense for arguing semantics and the absurd?
@puberis I work on my own cars. I don't have "faith" my breaks will work, I know they will. What you are trying to say is that if I believe my brakes will work, they will. Well, you're right, but only until they don't work. Why don't you try just having "faith" your brakes will work. Let me know how it works out. Your argument is ridiculous. I understand science. You have proven you do not. Common sense says your religion is ridiculous.
@glennheston That's not it at all. It's not hard. We'll try it without metaphor, since you can't look past it. Listen: I believe something will happen based on what is expected to happen and past experience. Just because I expect something to happen (have faith/trust it will) doesn't mean it will. But I press forward in the action assuming that the expected will happen. You have faith in the work you do on your car. You trust you've tightened the nut adequately. Why? Because you expect it to be.
@glennheston You can't even be totally sure something will happen with physics. There are always outside variables that are unknown or unaccounted for. Ergo, one makes the building, trusting it will stand. Just because they had faith it could absorb adequate shocks, doesn't mean it will withstand any earthquake. But they press on knowing they made it the best they could and they trust it will be able to persist based on past experience and relevant data and calculations.
@puberis Physics is more sure than religion ever will be. Stop trying to sound more intelligent than you are. The physics behind any building aren't anywhere near as "shakey" as you are trying to make them out to be. All the arguments you can come up with for religion are "shakey", at best. If science worked like you are trying to say it does, we don't need religious morons flying planes into our buildings. They would be falling down around us constantly! Stop thinking, you're doing it wrong!
@glennheston Take a hint from Tredicity and realize that civil debate is based on reason and arguments, not petty slander and half-formed thoughts. Try to disprove my argument instead of trying to nullify it by calling me an idiot. That makes you look ill-bred. If science worked as you say it does, we'd live in a perfect world. Buildings collapse, bridges crumble, things break. Read up on disasters like Fukushima, the Challenger, that Oakland double-deck bridge in the 1990s.
@puberis So what you're trying to say is physics doesn't work? I never made any claim whatsoever. Perfection is impossible. How do I disprove something that doesn't exist.? Your "god" doesn't exist. You can't provide a single shred of evidence. By trying to talk your point into reality, you just make it more unbelievable. Man makes mistakes, and that will always be true. The biggest mistake man ever made, was thinking up religion.
@llamaBPpotatoFT Off that horse, man. "Those not ready to except it"? I excepted it (Christianity) from my beliefs long ago. I do not, however, accept it as The 100% True Word of God the Father up in Heaven, I have basic rational and critical thinking abilities.
@mikeisapro Am I the only one who understood llama? Geez, dude, don't tell him to get "off that horse" before you take down your defenses. He merely said people not ready to accept (read, "not in a state of mind open to accepting...") a religion, won't accept a religion. Don't jump the gun to be offended. Use those "basic rational and critical thinking abilities" to analyze a statement fully beforehand.
Hi dennis where the hell did you go? I used to be a follower, but you dissapeared on us, Thank god for youtube, it cuts through a lot of shit, Rant on man
@jmack619 He has become a Right Wing shill on FOX News and with a hard right wing radio show. He can still be funny at times, but he's hard to listen to as he has become another partisan hack.
I love it when he backs up and glances up at the lights. What a genius.
gregorcollins 2 days ago
Miller is a fucking genius.
ClamCrunchy 2 weeks ago
why did HBO cancel this show?
nenofalletta 1 month ago
Stfu Amen!
kkquikB1 1 month ago
He makes good points, and i get all his references, but man is he unfunny. Boring, pretentious, verbose and criminally unfunny.
ElGorcho 1 month ago
@ElGorcho It's really hard to portray these points humorously. It's way harder than it looks. And I don't think you should criticize his degree of comedy until you take the same concepts and rant about them humorously. If you do, post it on your channel.
DaveDooval 1 month ago
@DaveDooval You see, that's not the point. The point is he tried and failed. Badly. Now when someone puts their work onto the airwaves they are craving for a reaction, positive or negative. And he got one out of me. Just not the one I think he was going for. I don't have the produce anything to be able to criticize it, just like I don't have to produce anything to appreciate something either. Comedy is an open form of expression and it's purposes is to elicit further open forms of expression.
ElGorcho 2 weeks ago
No force, just everyone's choice:
Follow God's Word, or Not!
3martijns 1 month ago
And yet you Miller continue to support the republicans. What a self serving little man you must be. I find that fact that your career has gone nowhere no excuse for your prostitution to the religious right. Nonetheless, that is exactly what you've done. Please do the world a favor and shut up. There is nothing noble about ripping off the unwashed masses.
dsindc 2 months ago
@dsindc Ya, that's exactly what i was thinking. Fucking hypocrite.
ElGorcho 1 month ago
And also religion is very silly bullshit.
TheSultan03 2 months ago
"There's a difference between following Jesus and stalking him!"
Priceless and right on!
luvutubing 4 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
COME
/watch?v=nrSuNipvS4U
SuperMegaUberGenius 4 months ago
People are responsible for their own actions. But, the great Evangelist of the world would differ with my opinion. Why? Because if they agree, then' s there' s no money for them. Do you really think that Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen or for that matter Sandra Kennedy does it for God? Tell them they have to do it for free and see how fast they disappear. But, they' re talking for God. Damn, so many people talking for God.
starr522 4 months ago 2
gh3rulz69 I could not have said it better myself....
lifeschild1 5 months ago
You is a funny guy Dennis....My azz is laughin' so hard that my spinkter shut down!?!?
lifeschild1 5 months ago
religion is bullshit anyway
gh3rulz69 5 months ago
I wish I could be humorous about religion but I cant. Religion is murder, rape, lying, oppression, misogyny. Religion hates freedom, life, Humans, safety, peace, intelligence, love. All religion is all bad all the time for everyone everywhere in the past present and future. A future that will be short, frightening and fraught with Human suffering. Don't be a craven coward. leave religion out of your life. Those that are religious, you need to regain your Humanity again.
699backstab 5 months ago
@699backstab Amen! ;)
JabberCT 4 months ago
@Puberis Christianity is not responsible for humanitarian efforts, it is merely another group of people that are part of it. The only question I have for religious people who gloat about their time donated, or help provided to the community, is why do you need the "God" excuse to do something humane? So many people just do good to others naturally...
Icanplaydominoes 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@puberis And I understand that. You have your faith, and you are entitled to it, and I have no right to attempt to rid you of it. But if I redirect your attention to my core argument, which is that it's reasonable and demonstrable that the Bible (and especially the Qur'ān) can be read and understood to be justifiable of and inciteful to violence, then I beseech you accept that one way to ensure this violence is never actualised is to disregard and denigrate these religions themselves.
Tredicity 6 months ago
A christian, a jew, a hindu, and a scientologist stand before me. They all believe their "god" is the true "god". I ask them "Prove your "god" exists". Notice I didn't say prove "god" exists, I said prove YOUR "god" exists. The only answer I expect to get is, "Prove he doesn't exist!". I expect this answer because none of them can prove their "god", or any other "god" exists. Proving one "god" exists, disproves all the other "god"s existence.
glennheston 6 months ago
@RageAgainstNWO Good ol' Jesus. His endeavors in the NT makes Christianity like totally 10 times better than Judaism! Well, here's Jesus for you: "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds." Revelation 2:22-23
Tredicity 7 months ago
@Tredicity ...and? He won't abide sin. He won't abide others coming in a corrupting the church. What's your point? Rage's point still stands -- Jesus said He'd deal with the sinner, as opposed to other "prophets" advocating the slaughter of non-believers. I think you missed the mark on that one...
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis You have misunderstood me. Those verses weren't intended to illustrate that Jesus advocates the slaughter of non-believers. They were intended to discredit the notion that Jesus is a shining beacon of moral integrity that elevates Christianity above Islam on ethical grounds. The verses I chose demonstrate Jesus's intention to murder a woman's children for her sins. Now, that mark, the mark I was aiming for, I hit.
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity Ah, I see. But you still misunderstand. That verse was a message to the church at Thyatira. The woman was a prophetess who was misleading the church into doing things forbidden by God. Often times, adultery was likened to idol worship, since God is the true "husband". As such, people who helped her message were committing adultery by forsaking God, and Christ said the followers of those ways ("children") would face judgment. In other words, he wouldn't turn a blind eye to their sins.
puberis 6 months ago
Comment removed
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity Careful, you're admitting Jesus Christ exists. If he doesn't, then it's not murder because he doesn't exist to carry it out. Two things: 1.) YOU are the outsider here. I don't explain fluid dynamics to a civil engineer, and an atheist can't explain Christianity to a Christian. I'm explaining the metaphor to YOU. 2.) If Christ exists, he is God, and therefore the giver of life. He alone contains the essence of being, and he gave it to us. So, he can't murder if life is his to give.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis No. Stop. You cannot know God more so than any human being. You haven't undergone apotheosis and haven't established a direct channel to the consciousness of the Creator. You are just as senseless as the rest of us. You and I have both read the words of the Bible, and are both qualified to ascribe meaning to those words. When I read Christ, your saviour, say, "I will kill her children", I regard it as profoundly immoral and discard it as too evil to be true. Why can't you do the same?
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity I can know. Read Plato. Just because I haven't become a table, doesn't mean I can't understand what a table is. Furthermore, as a Christian, I know God to be the God written of in the Bible. As such, I know Scripture to be his spoken word -- his revelation of himself to us. We Christians live our lives studying what he has said. You think in your 20+ years you can undermine 5000+ years of Jewish and Christian thought and understanding? You're the outsider who doesn't understand.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis I've read Plato, and I refuse to get into a nuanced philosophical argument with you. Put tersely, you can understand a table because it exists in the physical world. God doesn't, so you can't "know" Him. That is all I will say on the matter, and I kindly point your attention back to the fact that I'm using your scripture, which you regard as our one, true source to the mind of God, to tell you why it is evil and can be interpreted to justify murder.
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity Then read Descartes as well. Your point fails. Pegasus doesn't exist, but I understand that. You can interpret many things to say exactly what you want them to say, which is what you are doing. You're twisting my Scripture to say what you want it to say, despite my telling you what it really means. There's a reason you paste one "shocking" line as "evidence", and not the whole passage in context. The less people read, the less likely they are to understand and question your point.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis I'm so grateful you mentioned Pegasus, because he illustrates this point exceptionally. You are purporting to know God, and more so than I'll ever be able to. The fact is, you, and everyone else on this Earth, can understand Pegasus to precisely the same degree. If I were to submit to Pegasus and believe in his teachings, there is still absolutely no way that I can "know" Pegasus any more than you. And you're just as qualified as I to criticise and reject him.
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity I agree, but only if there weren't Pegasus teachings. If there was a Pegasus Bible out there that was supposedly the word of Pegasus, then you'd still have to differ to those who followed it and studied it. It's called canon--the definitive way of understanding it. In a sense though I do differ to your point. I do know God only in-so-much as he's revealed himself through his word. Of course man in this world can't fully understand the infinite, but we don't need to.
puberis 6 months ago
@Tredicity But my point is still that you can't argue your interpretation of what is written when Christianity itself has studied and said what it means. That's why we condemn evil men and women protesting outside soldier's funerals. And as I've tried to say to glennheston, there is a measure of faith that goes into it. Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether he believes and accepts it as truth, or rejects it as falsehood. As Aquinas said, it's reason and revelation. Faith and the mind.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis I'm glad you agree on this point, so I respectfully request you cease engaging in argumentum ad hominem. Please stop criticising my argument on the grounds that I am an atheist. I am just as qualified, as are all human beings, to make deductions concerning the words of your scripture. When I read Christ's words, "I will kill her children", I infer that Christ intends to kill, and my conclusion is Christ tolerates murder and can therefore justify evil. This is not fallacious reasoning.
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity It is not an ad hominem attack. I respect you. I haven't had this civil a debate in a long time. Here's what I'm saying: You can't say I'm wrong about what we Christians define as canon. I'm saying you are twisting scripture to your ends, just like people with "God Hates Fags" signs use it to their ends, or greedy Popes to theirs. Both interpretations are wrong. It's like talking to the author of a novel and telling him what he meant when he wrote it. It's ridiculous.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis I will never designate a notion to be false unless I have evidence to prove otherwise, and on an alternate note I posit you should be mindful that it would be prudent for you to do the opposite. Another point I'll proffer is that it's a reasonable stance to adopt that one needn't give credence to a notion until it's been proven to be true. And where one cannot do this, I accept you'll invoke that a measure of faith is required.
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity Your point about canon: true to a point, but there are plenty of notions that are defined as heresy among all denominations. Your propositions being some of them. There are clear-cut doctrines. I agree only that people can make anything out to mean what it want them to. But what's true is the meaning the speaker wanted to convey, and I've explained what Christ was saying. Whoever tries to justify violence through them is clearly wrong, and Christianity does not condone it.
puberis 6 months ago
@Tredicity I respect you for your respect as well. Many atheists and rationalists make it their life's work to destroy anyone who holds faith. Many times it doesn't matter. I do my math just as well. But why do you assume I haven't put my religion to the test? I've walked many roads, and thought many thoughts. Reason led me to believe there is a god, and things that have happened in my life have pointed me to Christ as that god. As we've said, reason can account for so much.
puberis 6 months ago
@Tredicity Faith was the recognition of Christ as the deity that I've come to believe existed. It's submission to something higher than you. A daily act. You said: " I beseech you accept that one way to ensure this violence is never actualised is to disregard and denigrate organised religion itself." I wholeheartedly disagree. Organised religion plays a role in halting violent heresies from popping up. It's where people like me come from, who argue against heresy and set straight the truth.
puberis 6 months ago
@Tredicity One quick comment to end this night: If the Bible could possibly be used to insight violence because somebody took it the wrong way, then you can make the same argument for anything that's ever been written. Those Norse sagas had some play with the Norwegian church burnings I'm sure. You'll have a hell of a time censoring everything. Especially those old Greco-Roman myths. All that incest! Again, case by case. Mein Kampf? Burn it. We know that wasn't metaphor. Not so with the Bible.
puberis 6 months ago
Comment removed
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity So in effect a sub-point of yours is correct--people can take things out of context and use them for violent aims (as you have done with those scriptures, only you use them for the accusation of violent aims). But, you have not the authority to claim that those scriptures are violent, because 2000 years of Christianity states they are not advocating violence, but are metaphors to convey a point. Just because people can take things a certain way, doesn't mean it's the correct meaning.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis There is no correct meaning. There is no canon. If there were canon, there'd be no Protestants and Catholics, Sunni and Shi'a. We are all human beings, we all don't know the mind of God, and we all must infer His meaning through scripture. When I present these verses to you, I am not twisting. I have clearly defined my premise, my inference and my conclusion. And by way of acknowledging that my logic is sound, you are agreeing that these verses can justify evil if interpreted as I have.
Tredicity 6 months ago
@puberis Your statement, "Just because people can take things a certain way, doesn't mean it's the correct meaning" resonates with me, and I'd like to focus on it because I feel it profoundly important to ponder. Please, take this moment to note that I have never said your religion is false. Many atheists do and that is their undoing.
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity Many cults are organised religions, and should be disbanded. If a large group of Christians ever did take to your interpretation, you and I will be on the same side to stop it. Just like with the Westboro Baptist Church (You're in the UK? I mentioned this before without knowing that. Look it up if you have time. Horrible.) But in the modern era organized Christianity is responsible for many humanitarian efforts, because it is organized. So I posit to you to take things case by case.
puberis 6 months ago
@Tredicity Being metaphors, the verse in Luke used the image of a king slaying his enemies to illustrate the image of Christ judging the world and throwing his enemies into Hell (true death). The same with Revelation. You're the one interpreting. I'm telling you what it means. If you are unable to understand simple metaphor, I can only try to help you see past them. In this weak age where people don't like to take a moral stand, I can see where the concept of judgment is foreign to you.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis Do you see what you just did there, in interpreting Revelation 2:23? Do you see what your religion is making you do? It's making you rationalise and explain away MURDER. Stop using phrases like "face judgment" when your Bible uses "strike dead", and your interpretation of "children" is irrelevant. Your saviour, Jesus Christ, MURDERS PEOPLE. And you're sitting there, explaining it to me and justifying it. You follow a murderer, and your religion is evil. You are evil.
Tredicity 6 months ago
@puberis However, I do thank you for offering me an opportunity to hit another mark; namely, Jesus's advocation of the slaughter of non-believers. I will hit this mark using words uttered by your saviour Jesus Christ – the person by whom your model your morality – according to your holy scripture, the Bible – the book by which you live your life: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 19:27)
Tredicity 6 months ago
@Tredicity You can't take a sentence out of context. This line is part of a parable. It uses a situation to show a truth. Here it stated that God set up Christ as king, but he went away from the kingdom for a while and entrusted his servants to take care of it. On Judgement Day in the future, he will return and there will be an accounting. He'll reward his servants according to what they've done, and his enemies will be cast into Hell. It say what he WILL do, not what we should do now. Got more?
puberis 6 months ago
@20thcentfox That's not necessarily true. You are assuming that all true things are perceivable
CambridgeHeights 7 months ago
Woah, woah, woah, Mr Miller. Don't pretend firing guns is only justifiable by Islamic dogmatism. Your Bible justifies exactly the same kind of irrational violence against adherents to all other faiths:
"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3)
Tredicity 7 months ago
@Tredicity Christians don't follow the laws of the OT, Jesus fulfilled the law.....we follow the words of Jesus Christ. You wont find Jesus telling anyone to kill anyone. Muhammad allowed his followers to kill non-belivers, and take the women as sex slaves.....when Jesus disciples wanted to burn down a village for not accepting Jesus, he rebuked his disciples, and left the village in peace.
RageAgainstNWO 7 months ago
RANT BABY RANT DUDE
soulous1 8 months ago
If your religion is true, then you SHOULD force it on people. Sure you might be annoying them here on earth, but there's a chance that you could save their soul for ETERNITY!
CambridgeHeights 8 months ago
@CambridgeHeights If your religion is true, you shouldn't HAVE to force it on people. It should be so blindingly obvious, there should be no other tenable choice. That there are so many thousands of sects within different ideologies speaks volumes.
MrDelirious 7 months ago
@MrDelirious No religion that I know of claims to be 'blindingly obvious'. They generally command the followers accept it on faith and spread the 'good news', the 'truth', the 'way', etc.
CambridgeHeights 7 months ago
@CambridgeHeights There is no true religion without the burden of truth. Some me proof without using the religious text of your religion, and ill believe.
sziss5 7 months ago
C H _ _ CH
What's Missing?
SuperMegaUberGenius 9 months ago
"There's a difference between following Jesus and stalking him!" bloody brilliant!
skywize 9 months ago
Fanatics bring such a bad name to religion. Every time that I have had a discussion with an atheist, they criticize everything that is done by fanatics, not by true followers of religion. By trying to impose their beliefs, not only do they miss out on loving others and growing spiritually, but they also make non-believers hate religion... perhaps that is why so many people nowadays hate religion so strongly.
Steinwaytoday 9 months ago
hist strength has always been writing, his bathrobe sessions are hilarious, his radio show has lots and lots of breaks and very short segments :(
Crimsonphilosophy 9 months ago
Loved him in the 90`s before he became bitter disillusioned and republican.
edthewise 10 months ago
I want Dennis to ride Trump on the next presidential election.
jodesanto 10 months ago
I once dated a woman whose parents would not let her see the movie Aladdin when she was a kid because they did not like the presence of magic in the movie (the genie, the magic carpet, the lamp). Talk about zealouts!!
JCGlock87 11 months ago 6
I love it when right winger atheists take a shit on religion. It confuses the shit out of Teabaggers.
papersplease 11 months ago
@papersplease i think you mean the religious right. the tea party is a fiscally conservative, socially neutral organization, commonly misconstrued to be an evangelical, even racist one.
there are many religious people in the tea party, probably even some racists, but just because a dachshund is a dog doesn't mean all dogs are dachshunds.
nephihirt 11 months ago
I have no problem with God, but religion scares th elife out of me. More people have been killed in the name of God than have been saved by Him.
juiceman1965 1 year ago
@juiceman1965 You mean him.
SPAMDAGGER22 11 months ago
2 people are religious zealots
teeyairuh 1 year ago
Fundamentalists see all aspects of the Bible as simultaneously equally true, a stance that is unsupportable by any logic. Thoughtful Christians see that there must be a hierarchy of truth, with words spoken by God/Jesus at the top and words and actions of people at the bottom. When questioned about divorce laws of Isreal, Jesus specifically said that these laws were only included in ancient canon "due to your hardness of heart." God's perfect will is not always represented.
darkkollin 1 year ago 2
even when i don't agree with Dennis Miller, it's simply a pleasure to hear his eloquence and to hear a person in the semi-popular mainstream who speaks intelligently.
esteban57764 1 year ago 2
I WONDER IF FOX NEWS HAS SEEN THIS RANT.....
dont tell Meaghn Kelly!!
waterbiscut91 1 year ago
Interesting. Miller supported the Iraq war, a war Bush instigated because "God told [him] to." Miller seems to like religious fundamentalism, which has confused me since I have now seen a youtube video where he rails against it. Hm.
durbansouthafrica 1 year ago
@durbansouthafrica No, he was supporting the war, but Bush's personal reason for going to war. There is a difference.
DeaconBlood 1 year ago
@durbansouthafrica Remove "God" from the equation. Saddam was a jerk that needed to be croaked for the world's benefit.
timinqueue 1 year ago
@timinqueue What were you doing about America's support of this jerk in the 1980s, at a time when the jerk was committing the worst of his crimes?
durbansouthafrica 1 year ago
@durbansouthafrica
Well, I was in high school, but you have to look at every situation in it's time (we needed an ally against Iran....still do). Once he gets too big for his britches, take him out. My point was that killing Saddam had nothing to do with "religion", and everything to do with justice.
timinqueue 1 year ago
@maxxrexx Isn't ALL religion nothing but fanaticism ?? Do these preachers on my sunday TV actually belive that god is working through them to create miracles such as improved hearing, relieving back pain and other pains? Is that all OUR GOD is good for? A class C miracle ? Why don't the REAL religions clamp down on the Sunday miracle workers?? Because they are practiceing the same type of fraud. That's my story and I,m sticking to it. Why are we catagorized as a christian nation
jmack619 1 year ago
@jmack619 televangelists are con artists
DRisLegend200919 9 months ago
Miller used to be funny till he turned into this ultra conservative nut job.
trier4952 1 year ago
@trier4952 I know hwo you feel, now he's bill o'reilly unfunny court jester.
htruman 1 year ago
@trier4952 So, he was funny when he was pointing out conservative absurdities, but not when he points out liberal absurdities? I thought he was funny both ways, he still aims an honest eye at our world.
Swartzeagle83 1 year ago 2
@trier4952 He hasn't changed at all. The left has gone totally overboard. Dennis Miller is willing to point out BS on both sides.
timinqueue 1 year ago 7
@timinqueue
This is great! He seems really insightful and fair-minded. It reminds me of why I used to like him a lot.
Did he cross over to the other side before or after this?
I've never heard him say anything this funny on Fox. I wonder if he ever would say those things on Fox. They never criticize the religious right, and I don't think they like the word "tolerence."
melora72 1 year ago
@melora72 Nobody likes tolerance, it means they have to accept an opinion against their own and 98% of people are too hard headed to listen to or even acknowledge that they might not have the right answers. I say if you are going to jab at one network, you should be ready to jab at them all because they are all pretty damn one sided and closed minded, much like their viewers. then again, I have no hope for anyone who gets their information from an idiot box, be it the TV or the computer.
cocolaboom 1 year ago
@melora72 well actually fox does criticize the religious right they just do it through sarcasm. lol
Coachrob36 11 months ago
@timinqueue
Are you talking about the same Dennis Miller going on tour with Bill "Tide goes in, Tide goes out" O'Reilly?
RichardMNixon 5 months ago
@trier4952 So, if he was an ultra liberal nut job, he'd be funny?
shummel121 1 year ago 2
@shummel121 he was more balanced back in his HBO days.
trier4952 1 year ago
i just put my balls in a bowling ball cleaner and buffed them to a glossy shine.
CnyAutofreak 1 year ago
Hindus do NOT worship cows! Get educated.
0Oclockmusic 1 year ago
oh man his comedy is golden, not that I laugh my ass off every time, but it makes me chuckle and think and I'd trade in his political right leaning rants in for this older Dennis Miller any day, I mean I don't want to get off on a rant here but....
Crimsonphilosophy 1 year ago
I'm absolutely Christian, but I agree with Miller. Forcing religion on others, especially those not ready to except it, is just annoying.
llamaBPpotatoFT 1 year ago 32
@llamaBPpotatoFT
You also say "not ready to accept it" like we should or else we are wrong, which is condescending, and very annoying.
mellowmark1 1 year ago
@llamaBPpotatoFT You spelled accept wrong.
Co1one1Crunch 8 months ago
@llamaBPpotatoFT "especially those not ready to except it," Really? Why do you think anyone who doesn't believe in any "god", just hasn't accepted it yet? I've never believed, and will never believe in any "god". No, you don't get to say I will someday, that won't happen.
glennheston 6 months ago
@glennheston Dude I'm not saying anything about you, I'm just making a general statement. If a person doesn't feel evidence supports a belief and comes from a background that rejects it, then trying to convince him of it or force it on him is just stupid and annoying. Just like a democrat trying to argue a liberal view to a conservative or vise versa. And if someone doesn't want to believe in something or feels no need to believe in something, he isn't going to be convinced anyway.
llamaBPpotatoFT 6 months ago
@glennheston Reason dictates that someone not believing in a god hasn't accepted the god, does it not? You can't accept something and not at the same time. You haven't accepted a god, therefore you don't believe in a god. Just like I haven't accepted string theory, therefore I don't believe in it. Any belief in a god needs a measure of faith. I can't prove my brake pads are always on my car, but I have faith they will stop my car when I push the pedal. I don't really know what your point is...
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis "Reason dictates that someone not believing in a god hasn't accepted the god, does it not?" Reason does not dictate anything of the sort. And you saying it does won't change that. The great thing about any science, is that it doesn't need you to believe it for it to be true. I can prove your brake pads are on your car, and faith won't change them when they need it. Only an idiot would "have faith" that their car was working properly.
glennheston 6 months ago
@glennheston Yikes, pick up a logic book. It'll do you well. I don't know how you can argue that not accepting doesn't mean not believing. You can accept something that's not true, and then you believe it. And vice versa. Do I really need to explain this? And you can't prove my brakes are on my car when I'm going 70 down the freeway, until I press them and they work. They could've fallen off. But I trust they will work when I press the pedal. One has faith/trusts that things will go as planned.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis You believe in a sky daddy, and you have the nerve to speak about logic! I not only do not accept your inane religious beliefs, I don't believe them either! No, I can't accept something that isn't true. If it's not true, then it's not true. I can prove your brakes are on your car every time I hit the brakes. I trust, only an idiot has faith. There are differences in the two words, that's why there's two different words.
glennheston 6 months ago
@glennheston One word Glenn -- Thesaurus.
puberis 6 months ago
@glennheston I would say only someone suffering OCD wouldn't have faith their car was working properly. Do you pull over every 5 minutes and prove everything is safe? You take for granted (meaning "trust' or "have faith") that things that are expected to happen will happen. That's why "surprise" is defined as something out of the ordinary that you didn't expect. Are you so afraid of giving any credence to any religion that you now sacrifice common sense for arguing semantics and the absurd?
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis I work on my own cars. I don't have "faith" my breaks will work, I know they will. What you are trying to say is that if I believe my brakes will work, they will. Well, you're right, but only until they don't work. Why don't you try just having "faith" your brakes will work. Let me know how it works out. Your argument is ridiculous. I understand science. You have proven you do not. Common sense says your religion is ridiculous.
glennheston 6 months ago
@glennheston That's not it at all. It's not hard. We'll try it without metaphor, since you can't look past it. Listen: I believe something will happen based on what is expected to happen and past experience. Just because I expect something to happen (have faith/trust it will) doesn't mean it will. But I press forward in the action assuming that the expected will happen. You have faith in the work you do on your car. You trust you've tightened the nut adequately. Why? Because you expect it to be.
puberis 6 months ago
@glennheston You can't even be totally sure something will happen with physics. There are always outside variables that are unknown or unaccounted for. Ergo, one makes the building, trusting it will stand. Just because they had faith it could absorb adequate shocks, doesn't mean it will withstand any earthquake. But they press on knowing they made it the best they could and they trust it will be able to persist based on past experience and relevant data and calculations.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis Physics is more sure than religion ever will be. Stop trying to sound more intelligent than you are. The physics behind any building aren't anywhere near as "shakey" as you are trying to make them out to be. All the arguments you can come up with for religion are "shakey", at best. If science worked like you are trying to say it does, we don't need religious morons flying planes into our buildings. They would be falling down around us constantly! Stop thinking, you're doing it wrong!
glennheston 6 months ago
@glennheston Take a hint from Tredicity and realize that civil debate is based on reason and arguments, not petty slander and half-formed thoughts. Try to disprove my argument instead of trying to nullify it by calling me an idiot. That makes you look ill-bred. If science worked as you say it does, we'd live in a perfect world. Buildings collapse, bridges crumble, things break. Read up on disasters like Fukushima, the Challenger, that Oakland double-deck bridge in the 1990s.
puberis 6 months ago
@puberis So what you're trying to say is physics doesn't work? I never made any claim whatsoever. Perfection is impossible. How do I disprove something that doesn't exist.? Your "god" doesn't exist. You can't provide a single shred of evidence. By trying to talk your point into reality, you just make it more unbelievable. Man makes mistakes, and that will always be true. The biggest mistake man ever made, was thinking up religion.
glennheston 6 months ago
@llamaBPpotatoFT Off that horse, man. "Those not ready to except it"? I excepted it (Christianity) from my beliefs long ago. I do not, however, accept it as The 100% True Word of God the Father up in Heaven, I have basic rational and critical thinking abilities.
mikeisapro 6 months ago
@mikeisapro Am I the only one who understood llama? Geez, dude, don't tell him to get "off that horse" before you take down your defenses. He merely said people not ready to accept (read, "not in a state of mind open to accepting...") a religion, won't accept a religion. Don't jump the gun to be offended. Use those "basic rational and critical thinking abilities" to analyze a statement fully beforehand.
puberis 6 months ago
@llamaBPpotatoFT accept
Microsizeme 6 months ago
who knew common sense could be so hilarious
bundlesofmsg 1 year ago 2
and buff them to a glocy shine ....LMAO thats to funny
Hoschi0913 1 year ago
Dude sat next to me in the airport a month ago trying to get me to convert to Christianity... I wish I had the balls to tell him to stfu, lol.
rocknroll015 1 year ago
Miller may be a Republican, but it is cool to see that he doesn't blindly agree with everything they tend to stand for.
grungefreak10 2 years ago
Love Dennniiiis.
drunkonredemption 2 years ago
...What does "rant" mean?
thirteen3 2 years ago
@thirteen3
LOL Peter Griffin!
ladyvincenza 2 years ago
he is good, but he is wrong, all muslims are fucked.
orbital92hotmail 2 years ago
@orbital92hotmail damn iggnit
xchaosblade0 2 years ago
Islim, Nice way to say it...
bizzywizzy321123 2 years ago
Interesting. Religious fanaticism is nonsense.
Chuloloc 2 years ago 5
Hi dennis where the hell did you go? I used to be a follower, but you dissapeared on us, Thank god for youtube, it cuts through a lot of shit, Rant on man
jmack619 2 years ago 29
@jmack619 he's on the A.M. radio, man. Check him out if you dig Miller.
mrtstubbs 1 year ago
@jmack619
you really dont know where he's been? Dennis has a frequent spot on the O'Rielly Factor.
*sigh* how far the mighty have fallen.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@jmack619 He has become a Right Wing shill on FOX News and with a hard right wing radio show. He can still be funny at times, but he's hard to listen to as he has become another partisan hack.
BunkerGearGal 1 year ago
@BunkerGearGal He ain't that "hard right"... He's still pro choice, pro gay-marriage, etc. He's more of a libertarian.
pipjmalt 1 year ago 2
@jmack619 he has a radio show
mduby28 10 months ago
@jmack619 dennismillerradio . com
kbr7171 10 months ago
I LIKED him when he was liberal and I was oblivious.
I LOVE him now that he's conservative and I'm a RWE.
kensleystewart 2 years ago 2
Me too!
chickenbeak119 2 years ago
@chickenbeak119 me three
kenporich2006 2 years ago