Bill O'Reilly: "The Atheists Are Just Stupid For Making People Angry"

December 15, 2009 on FOX News with Ann Coulter

via http://atheistmedia.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• bill
• oreilly
• atheists
• fox
• news
• war
• on
• christmas
• ann
• coulter
• christian
• atheism
• church
• state

[BackRockDelta]

I'm an atheist and frankly I couldn't give a damn if Christians want to erect a pagan symbol to celebrate the birth of their lord on a date that was chosen because of it's importance to paganism... I just find it quite funny.

Also doesn't their arguement that the government shouldn't allow the non-religious signs break the first amendment?

[SuprSlowMo]

Wow both of them are retards.

[TheTruemouse]

@mimosveta So you're telling us that they should not be allowed to say something is stupid because of freedom of speech? Works both ways.

[PaperViewed]

The sign was written by a bigot.

[mimosveta]

So typical of internet generations to call something stupid when they don't understand it. It's called freedom of speech. 

[FlyingPinkUnicorn]

It is amazing how people who can be fairly smart about politics can be dog shit stupid when it comes to religion. Interestingly, some of the dumbest people when it comes to politics actually "get it" when it comes to religion.

[Zenagaserpent]

Holy shit...

[wehatemacs]

@DeadLines73 Whatever floats your boat I suppose. I know how easy it is to get carried away when another person is arguing like a moron, so I see how it can be fun to destroy their reality.

I just think this moron is particularly moronic. Anyone who argues religion from a factual standpoint whilst reciting verse, is a moron of the highest order.

[DeadLines73]

@wehatemacs I like reading these people's circular reasoning. I enjoy showing them the facts and then reading their desperate responses. nnjhansen is a prime example of someone who's desperation clouds his reasoning and logic receptors of his brain.

[DeadLines73]

@nnjhansen Not dependent on his divinity? His supposed birth is seen as divine, the miracles he performed are considered divine. His "resurrection" is even considered divine. If you can't prove any of those 3 how can you prove historicity.

Yeah, discrepancies that have no evidence for happening.

Herod's death in 4 bce and the census of Quirinius had actually took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E. Pilate letting the Jews dictate who he is claimed to have crucified, HA!

[DeadLines73]

@timcp1 Based on the fact that many scholars and even theologians have come to accept the fact that the references to "Jesus" was interpolated, or added later. Many suspect Eusebius to be the one who added the references because no body before him ever brought up Josephus mentioning Jesus. Also the fact that Josephus wrote the Antiquities long after and can only be taken as hearsay. Hearsay doesn't prove historicity. Something that it seems you Christians cannot accept.

[DeadLines73]

@timcp1 The Babylonian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend. It cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.