It's not okay.. . wll. tll.' kiitti an atheist is okay. , Being an atheist and shaming religions and spirituality as silly and not real is not okay. Being a Chr
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

It's not okay.

wll. tll.' kiitti an atheist is okay. ,
Being an atheist and shaming religions and
spirituality as silly and not real is not okay.
Being a Christian is okay.
Being homophobic, misogynistic, racist, or
otherwise hateful person in the name of
Christianity is not okay,
Being a reindeer is okay.
Bullying and excluding another reindeer
because a he has a shiny red nose is not
okay.
...
+1432
Views: 70980
Favorited: 172
Submitted: 10/02/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to magicaltoast E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(468):

[ 468 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
#414 - nasesse (10/03/2013) [-]
What if I am a racist, homophobic, bullying atheist reindeer. Is that ok.
What if I am a racist, homophobic, bullying atheist reindeer. Is that ok.
#435 to #414 - herbvk (10/04/2013) [-]
yes, that is ok
User avatar #412 - ibeatmykidz (10/03/2013) [-]
I have homophobia like I have arachnophobia, if a gay crawled under your bed you'd be scared.


User avatar #413 to #412 - aedai (10/03/2013) [-]
>this ******* guy.
#411 - derpdy (10/03/2013) [-]
my response to them
my response to them
#403 - josieabby (10/03/2013) [-]
They USED to laugh and call him names.
User avatar #401 - spacehawk (10/03/2013) [-]
All of those things are okay. Its called freedom of speech. Just because something offends you doesnt make it "not okay". Your intolerance doesnt give you right to special treament.
User avatar #404 to #401 - spacehawk (10/03/2013) [-]
Im not saying that I agree with homophobic/racist/bigoted people, but I will fight for thier right to say whatever they want, so that we can uphold freedom of expression.
User avatar #402 to #401 - kafudamapla (10/03/2013) [-]
THANKYOU. How boring would life be if people kept their opinions to themselves?
#400 - anonymous (10/03/2013) [-]
On the internet

No one knows you're a reindeer.
User avatar #391 - childpls (10/03/2013) [-]
I'm christian but I don't discriminate against atheists and other religions because everyone should have their own beliefs.
User avatar #420 to #391 - Kaiserlome (10/03/2013) [-]
I'm an atheist and I believe that religous people are delusional and irrational, you're allowed to believe it legally but that doesn't stop it from being wrong and stupid.
User avatar #390 - ForNarniaaa (10/03/2013) [-]
I took this very seriously until reindeer
#388 - thebritishguy (10/03/2013) [-]
But religious myths are silly, I don't know why I should pretend to think something which I don't.
#410 to #388 - apurpleliger (10/03/2013) [-]
You do understand that a lot of the stories in the Bible are extended metaphors, and not intended to be taken as fact, right? Because that's how I as a Catholic have been taught to understand them.
User avatar #415 to #410 - thebritishguy (10/03/2013) [-]
That's how you have been taught but it doesn't say that in the bible at all.
#417 to #415 - apurpleliger (10/03/2013) [-]
The Bible is up to the interpretation of the reader. I can't comment on other faiths, but in the case of the Catholic Church, Catholics are meant to understand that some of the stories, primarily in the Old Testament, are not meant to be taken as factual, but they are meant to teach a lesson. And by "are meant" I mean that this is what I was taught in my religion classes at the Catholic school I went So the Catholic Church (the faith, not the people) doesn't fall under the category of people who take the Bible literally. Again, I don' t know about how other faiths interpret it.
User avatar #419 to #417 - thebritishguy (10/03/2013) [-]
but then you have no way of knowing what is true. It's like if we took a science or history book and said "some of these things are probably metaphors, H20 might just mean "High 2 Otter", Hitler declared war on atheism, that probably means that he wrote the word atheism and attacked it"
There's no way of knowing what the hell the bibles talking about, it could be that Jesus never existed and heaven is a metaphor, who knows?
#429 to #419 - apurpleliger (10/04/2013) [-]
That's where the "faith" part comes in. I have faith that God and Jesus are real and that if I'm a good person on Earth I'll be able to go to Heaven when I die. I can't prove that God is real, but I choose to believe that he is. If you choose not to believe in Him, that's perfectly fine. I don't hold it against people.

But I will say this: There's a lot of things that you can't prove exist. Following Descartes' line of thought, I can't prove anything beyond the fact that I have thoughts. Taking anything in the world as fact is an act of faith.
How do we know that what we perceive really happening? What if one of us is in a coma and our entire reality is imagined? There's no way to definitively prove whether or not that is true. We take it on faith that our perceived world is real. So if I want to take it on faith that God is real and that I can join Him in Heaven when I die, how is that any different?

And on the part about the science or history book, I don't personally take the Bible to be an exact historic record of what happened back then. I understand that a lot of the stories in the Bible are just that, stories. But that doesn't mean that nothing is true in the Bible. I can decide what I believe in just like you can. We'll find out who is correct when we die.

And no, I don't think I'm some hotshot philosopher just because I've taken a philosophy class, but Descartes' Meditations is something that I felt I had a good enough understanding of to utilize.
User avatar #441 to #429 - thebritishguy (10/05/2013) [-]
Well you do realise that you can not simply choose a belief in the same way that you choose a pizza topping. I can't just say "I'm going to believe Hitler was good and see how that goes" I can pretend to believe that Hitler was good but I am unable to believe such a thing based on the evidence that I have. In the past I have actually tried to choose to believe in things like that there were still dinosaurs in Papua New Guinea and aliens, but the evidence isn't good enough .

Faith is the belief in something with which we have no evidence, what we define as evidence is things which we observe and measure, like fingerprints and hair on the crime scene. Facts are things which have been proven by this evidence. To have faith is to have none of what we define as evidence and yet still believe in the hypothesis. If faith counts as any belief ever then the word faith becomes completely meaningless.

We don't know that we are not in some absurd tank like in the matrix and all suffering from a delusion, but to propose this claim and believe it with no evidence would be a real act of faith. We define this "delusion" as reality though and so it is kind of real by default.

It is no different, to believe that everything you see is a delusion and reality is completely different and all the stars and planets are actually illusions without evidence, you would be locked in an asylum. It is perhaps different because I would have to say that believing in God would perhaps be more reasonable than to believe that there is a matrix.

Unfortunately if I am correct then I will never know if I was correct and neither will you because we will be dead. I know you don't take it as history I was explaining why believing that whatever personal interpretation you happen to have is never the way that you find the truth.

I don't know much about philosophy, I've just been browsing it, I'm reading Bertrand Russell at the moment though.
#443 to #441 - apurpleliger (10/06/2013) [-]
You make some good points, but it ultimately still does come down to each individual whether they believe in a higher being or not. Personally I think that there has to have been someone up there making sure things went right for humanity and for the world for us to have made it this far. The odds of humanity even coming into existence as conscious, intelligent beings, is so insanely against us that I can't help but think that someone was there guiding the world along for us. But again, that's just the way I see it and I'm not going to judge someone for seeing things differently. I argue about religious topics in hopes that both sides can have a better understanding of each other.

And to follow Pascal's wager, as you said, if you're right and I'm wrong, we will both be dead and nothing will happen. But if I'm right, I'll spend an eternity in Heaven after I die. Pascal's wager is basically taking that argument to the point of saying, "what have you got to lose from believing in God [or Allah or any other incarnation of a Higher being]?" That isn't a personal reason as to why I believe in God, but it's a decent enough reason to not do anything that would put someone on His bad side
User avatar #445 to #443 - thebritishguy (10/06/2013) [-]
Well Pascals wager may have been kind of valid if it was true that you have full control over your beliefs. But even then if I believe in Christianity pascals wager will be about Islam, if I'm a muslim then pascals wager would face me against Judaism, if I was a Jew Pascal would taunt me of Hinduism etc.
I suppose it would be best to have no religion anyway because as Homer Simpson said "what if you have the wrong God and every week you anger him more by going to church?"
#446 to #445 - apurpleliger (10/07/2013) [-]
Pascal's wager doesn't go into specifics. In my understanding, any monotheistic faith really is following the same God, just in different ways. In some cases, it literally is understood to be the same God. For example, Christians have the same God as Jews, the only difference is that we believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Additionally, the creation of Islam was started by the son of Abraham, so their God is the same God as the Jewish and Christian God. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by saying "if it was true that you have full control over your beliefs"
User avatar #449 to #446 - thebritishguy (10/07/2013) [-]
They are similar but in what really matters to Pascals wager is that they are mutually exclusive, the bible says that the only way to heaven is through Christ and that if you deny Christ is the messiah then you won't go to heaven, so the Jews and Muslims won't go to heaven. The Muslims think that all infidels will not go to heaven, which cancels out the Jews and Christians. The Jews are far more welcoming, they have three different groups, the wicked in hell, the middle go through hell to be "refined" and then get to heaven and the righteous go straight to heaven, generally you don't have to be Jewish to go to heaven.

I mean that I can not choose to believe in something just because it will be beneficial. If I am in the car and Justin bloody Bieber comes on the radio I do not have the ability to say "I will now choose the believe that this song sounds good". I am literally unable to consciously change my beliefs because it would be beneficial. So Pascals Wager isn't a good argument, even if it was true then I still couldn't just choose to believe in God because it's beneficial.
#451 to #449 - apurpleliger (10/07/2013) [-]
I think the point that Pascal was making was basically "it can't hurt to believe in God, so why not try it out?" It's not saying that you should change your beliefs just because it's beneficial, it's saying that you might as well be open to the idea of it because the worst that can happen is literally nothing. Using the example of Justin Bieber, it would be more along the lines of, "well, its there for me to listen to, maybe I could leave it on and see if I actually end up liking it." You don't have to do it, but you don't really lose anything from it if you don't end up liking it.

Everyone has a different idea of who goes to Heaven. I know a lot of people who believe that good people can go to Heaven, whether they believe in God or not.

Muslims believe in Allah, correct? And infidels are those who do not believe in Allah? But if Allah and Yahweh and Jesus are all different names and different interpretations of the same being, then Christians and Jews might not be infidels in the eyes of Allah. The Bible, as far as I can recall, doesn't explicitly or implicitly state that denying Christ as the Messiah means that you won't go to Heaven. From a Christian standpoint, Christ is God, so I'll refer back to the point that all other monotheistic faiths have a singular God that they believe in. So they are only denying someone else's understanding of God, but they aren't denying God himself. Atheism is the only segment that actually denies the existence of God, and since Atheists don't believe in an afterlife, there's no problem there, right? I don't personally believe that Atheists are going to hell just for being Atheists; this paragraph was just meant to combat the argument about choosing the wrong religion.
#458 to #451 - thebritishguy (10/07/2013) [-]
I don't try it out because it is impossible, once again I know that I can not believe in something without a valid reason, it is false that it would not harm me because I would be deluded, lose sense of pride, privacy and (I imagine) scared.
I lose time and my comfort by listening to Justin Bieber, the point I have been making this whole time is that I am literally unable to choose
"The belief that Justin Bieber makes good music"

Biddhism also denies the existence of a God, although deny is an emotive word and implies that they know there is a God but they just don't like him, which is false.

Even if you were correct and these monotheistic religions all said that they would all go to heaven, why would I go for a monotheistic religion? Pascal doesn't say that one belief is higher than the other he just says that it is a chance like in Russian Roulette, there are millions of Gods to choose from and if I truly could choose one, I can't because I literally lack the ability to consciously change my beliefs, it would be the belief in the
Flying Spaghetti Monster, R'Amen
#459 to #458 - anonymous (10/08/2013) [-]
For you it may be impossible to change your mind because you've shut down your mind towards the option already. How would you lose your privacy, and how would you be scared? You can't say for certain who is deluded and who is not. I also don't see where the pride comes in.

I'm not saying to choose "I now like Justin Bieber's music"
I'm saying to not shut down your mind completely to the possibility that he could make some good music.
User avatar #460 to #459 - thebritishguy (10/08/2013) [-]
I'm guessing this is you apurpleliger
I'm not saying that I'm sure that there is no God or that I will never believe, I might when I'm older, I'm saying that I can not make the conscious decision to believe anything, I have in the past tried to believe in things like "My cat will survive his illness" but it just didn't work.

I would lose my privacy because I would believe that Gods watching me all day and night, when I was young I was scared of God and the apocalypse, several times in the bible it says that you should fear God. I don't know they are deluded but I think that it is a delusion. Pride is one of the sins and in the bible it says not to be proud.

My mind is open to that but I still can not choose to believe it because I can't consciously choose beliefs.
#466 to #460 - apurpleliger (10/14/2013) [-]
Alright, I'll drop that part. As far as I remember though, it's excessive pride that is a sin, not pride itself. I could be wrong though, but that's what I've always heard it as
User avatar #444 to #443 - thebritishguy (10/06/2013) [-]
Well the creationist calculations are based on whether something happens by complete chance and not by natural selection. For instance...
"The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge."
But when we consider that the event would not be by complete chance but by a chemical reaction, the laws of physics and natural selection. Also when we consider that it could have been less complex and progressed to be more complex we get a different result.
"the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite."

As far as the human state is at the moment it makes it easy to believe that we are just monkeys in clothes. Throughout history the cost of slaves has always been high, people kept their slaves clean and healthy, the mean cost of slaves for the past few hundred years is $40,000, today the mean cost is $100, human life is simply disposable and there are more slaves today than there ever has been. So I think humans didn't need anything divine to get to this point in time.
#447 to #444 - apurpleliger (10/07/2013) [-]
And I'm not talking about the argument between creationism and Darwinism. If you actually look into Darwinism though, you will see that it doesn't go against the Church in any way. In fact, Darwin was a devout Christian and believed that his findings supported Christianity.

What I'm talking about, though, is intelligent design. There were so many other possible outcomes for the world where we wouldn't have made it this far. Humanity could have been wiped out by far more savage beasts long before we became civilized, but it didn't happen. I know that the argument is that we survived because we were more intelligent or something along those lines, but how did that come about? I don't think it was by chance that we came into being as we are; I think that there was someone, or something, that put in place the chemical reactions that caused us. There are so many other ways that our DNA could have evolved, so why did we end up how we are? I like to think that humans were created for a purpose, both on an individual level and on a societal level.
#450 to #447 - thebritishguy (10/07/2013) [-]
That depends entirely what you mean by "the church", I'm assuming you mean the Catholic church? Darwin used to be a Christian (he even studied theology) but while travelling he became an atheist and then after one of his children died his wife believed that their child was burning in hell and he grew to despise the church. If evolution is true there was no Adam and Eve, no original sin, which is a problem for the church.

Have you seen humans? we are exceptionally stupid in my eyes, dolphins must be far more intelligent because they just spend all day having fun and not killing each other. Nobody thinks that humans came about by chance it was "natural selection". The idea of "survival of the fittest" is very simplistic though, it's also "survival of the sexiest, survival of the most social, survival of the most obedient, survival of the most caring of their children, survival of the most cunning etc."
Intelligence would have been a strong edge in survival because you can trap and outwit predators and prey as well as steal, get ***** , design tools and shelter, look after your children, get friends, stay out of trouble, persuade enemys and tradesmen. It's obvious to me why we see that primates were able to slowly progress in brain size. We can see from different races and species of early humans that there were many different ways that we did turn out, hobbit and Neanderthals were very much like humans and it is even thought now that neanderthals and humans mated. There is a great diversity of humans also.

I like to think that dinosaurs still exist in remote parts of the world but that doesn't make it credible. I think that just because I have no meaning for life doesn't mean that life is not meaningful because there are so many thinks which make my life meaningful.
#452 to #450 - apurpleliger (10/07/2013) [-]
I do mean the Catholic Church. And when Darwin presented his theory of evolution, he did so as a Christian without any sort of pro- or anti-theological implications. He didn't find any conflict between evolution and Christianity. The story of Adam and Eve is widely regarded as one of the "metaphorical stories" of the Bible. That is to say that it is there to give some exposition to humanity and its flaws, but should not, in any way, be taken as historic fact. Additionally, the entire creation story is said to have taken 7 days, but that doesn't necessarily mean seven 24-hour periods. "Let there be light" could have been the big bang. God created all these other animals before he created man. That was written in the Bible in one day, but the "days" could have been a simpler way of referring to each "step" God took when creating the world. That "Day" could have been a millenia, and the entirety of prehistoric races could have come and gone during that "Day". All we know from the Bible is that the "Day" God created animals took place before the "Day" that God created man. "God creating man" could also be taken as "God putting in place the reactions that caused modern man to come about through evolution".

I'll also pull this out, even though I hate the last panel of it about sinners being eternally lost: You need to login to view this link
And I realize it goes against what I just said about the seven days, but for the sake of the argument I figure I'll put up multiple perspectives.
#454 to #452 - thebritishguy (10/07/2013) [-]
That comic made my nuts tighten so hard, I'll talk about it when I've calmed down a bit
#457 to #454 - apurpleliger (10/07/2013) [-]
As I said, I don't like the overall theme of the comic, nor do I like the way that it depicts Athiests, but it does bring up some interesting points about the fossils of our ancestors and such.
User avatar #461 to #457 - thebritishguy (10/08/2013) [-]
First off like many Chick Tract comics the protagonist looks Jewish, also it's dumb that only one kid believed in creationism because 40% of Americans do, not like 1%.
I'll just outline this fabulous refutation: You need to login to view this link
None of it is true, no experts except creationists believe that Lucy is a chimpanzee and she is not one of the earliest humans she is an Australopithecus , it assumes that only "real science" is direct observation and even so there are 5 cases where we have observed macro evolution, but they are pretty much the same anyway, the other types of evolution aren't biological. It has been illegal to teach the bible in schools,
"Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) declared school sponsored reading of the Bible to be unconstitutional (ie against the law) "The U. S. Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard found that teaching Creationism alongside Evolution in the classroom was unconstitutional, violating the establishment clause.""
The dating isn't circular logic because there are several ways of dating rocks, animals in the rock is just one of them.
Even if you could disprove evolution creationism wouldn't be proved at all.
#467 to #461 - apurpleliger (10/14/2013) [-]
As I said, that wasn't my argument, it was just a different perspective. After that website I won't be using it again. I don't think it really changed things either way though, since neither of us were creationists to begin with.
#453 to #452 - thebritishguy (10/07/2013) [-]
Well he didn't at first but he gradually went to agnostic and then was considered an atheist. He did find problems with religion based upon anthropology and the design argument
"With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can." Charles Darwin

If it is so obvious that the whole Adam and Eve thing was just supposed to be a metaphor then why has the world been fooled for hundreds of years and continues to do so into believing this myth? Surely God could have just jotted "all characters in this story are entirely fictional, any relation to a living person is purely coincidental, don't do it up the bum. - God"

Actually there's debate about whether animals were created before man.
#455 to #453 - apurpleliger (10/07/2013) [-]
That quote state that Darwin doesn't think that the world came into being on its own.

One way to look at the flaws of the natural world is that the world is trying to become perfect, and natural disasters and the like are side effects of this process that the world is undergoing. Or, you could say that problems like these are there to challenge man and give humanity an opportunity to better itself. Wars and other man-made problems, on the other hand, are exactly that: man-made. Going by the Catholic view, humans were given free will to do as they please, this means that humans are at fault for killing and violence, not God. Before original sin, however, Humans were not influenced by temptation (The Devil, if you will) and thus did not have the problem of violence. It was by humanity's own choice to give in to temptation (Represented Biblically in the form of Eve eating the apple) that opened up the possibility of war and violence. God could have prevented this by taking away our free will, but I think that God chose not to do so because he greatly valued our free will and our ability to choose what we want to do. Based on that and the theory that God is omnipresent (everywhere at all times) and knew how the universe would unfold before he even created it, one might even conclude that the violence and killing and all the other hardships we have and will endure are only speedbumps, and that in the grand scheme of things our life on Earth is relatively insignificant compared to our life in Heaven. It's like breaking an arm. Sure, it hurts a crapton(that's a new metric unit of pain) when it's happening, but a couple years later and it's just a memory, something that might not hurt you anymore. When that's scaled up to the spectrum of life, including an infinite afterlife, the painful events of our short time on Earth become hardly more than a speedbump on the road to perfection (or happiness, depending on how one defines Heaven).
User avatar #462 to #455 - thebritishguy (10/08/2013) [-]
what do you mean the world is trying to be perfect? It would be an extremely unfair challenge, we in the West are well fed while those underneath us are enslaved and poverty stricken also as God is omniscient he would know the result of the challenge without actually making people suffer, yet does it anyway for luls.
People in heaven have free will and don't suffer.
So clearly you can have free will and be happy. Furthermore we would have to believe that God carefully designs parasites to eat our eyes and cancer and aids, these have absolutely nothing to do with free will, in fact they take away our free will because they stop us from doing things.
To think of our life as a doorstop is upsetting to me, I think my life is the most important thing I will ever own. Also you must remember that the majority of people who have suffered and died didn't know about Christianity so there was no chance of them going to heaven or taking a test which was impossible for them to pass and then they will be tortured in hell for not doing something which was impossible.
#468 to #462 - apurpleliger (10/14/2013) [-]
You're going off of one specific interpretation where anyone who doesn't believe in Christianity is going to hell. That's not the way I think about it. I think that the people who do good on earth will be able to make it to Heaven, whether they believed in God or not. I personally know atheists that have a better shot at getting into Heaven than some "religious" people I know.

The test I'm talking about and the one you're talking about are different.
I don't think that the bad things that happen to us are there just to test our faith, and that anyone who doesn't believe is already out of the race from the get-go. I think that the conflicts in our lives are there as a test of our spiritual strength and resilience. It's not necessarily a test that you can fail. You're put under pressure and you either make it out okay or you're better prepared for it next time. And maybe our entire life is the test. Maybe the spirits of those who aren't ready to go to Heaven yet are reincarnated and go through the test again until they have become strong enough to pass it. I don't know, but I do believe that God has a reason for the things that happen, whether we can understand what that reason is or not.
User avatar #471 to #468 - thebritishguy (10/14/2013) [-]
Well if you are right then Jesus is wrong
John 14:6 ESV / 140 helpful votes
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
but it says several times that Jesus is the only way
Mark 16:16 ESV / 13 helpful votes
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Revelation 21:8 ESV / 45 helpful votes
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for ********* , the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

The bible says nothing about reincarnation you just made that up and even so, that would be a rubbish way to give them another chance because they would most likely be reborn in China and become Buddhist. The test relies almost wholly upon where you are born and nothing more.
#473 to #471 - apurpleliger (10/15/2013) [-]
The Passage from John could be read from a pluralist point of view, though. Maybe someone doesn't believe in Jesus by name, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have discovered the same entity in his own personal life and believed in that. You can "find Jesus" without calling Him "Jesus."
So even going off of the idea that Jesus is the only way you can still have a different name and a different understanding of the same divine being.

The New Testament also speaks quite frequently about forgiveness, and about how sinners can be forgiven and saved from the fires of hell. Who said that forgiveness had to come on Earth? We can't possibly have any idea what will happen after death, or the likelihood of the difference possibilities, so maybe there is a purgatory where everyone goes to be forgiven, and if they choose not to be forgiven then they go to hell.
I realize the Bible doesn't say anything about reincarnation. I never said that it did. I was offering that up as one possibility. For all we know, we could all be in Purgatory right now. Here is a generic definition of Purgatory: it is a waiting place for those that aren't ready for Heaven yet but haven't guaranteed themselves a spot in hell either. It may not be the only definition of it, but that is one way to look at it. Our lives on Earth could be equated to that since we start out with a clean slate (disregarding Original Sin which is a state of being rather than a sin itself) and then live our lives how we choose.

And maybe God doesn't care what specific religion you worship? Maybe anytime that has been said in a religious text it was a misrepresentation on the part of the author? Maybe God puts merit on how you live your life and treat others, not which version of him you say your prayers to?

I keep saying "maybe" because no claims about the afterlife can really be made with any certainty by someone living on Earth.
User avatar #474 to #473 - thebritishguy (10/15/2013) [-]
I give up, if you can't make up your mind about what the bible says then I can't comment
#456 to #455 - apurpleliger (10/07/2013) [-]
Ran out of space. Addressing your part about explaining the characters as being fictional, the only times that's done in any sort of fictional story are when the writer is covering their asses to make sure they're not sued (read: southpark). Generally there isn't any point in a fictional story where the writer explicitly states that it's a fictional story.
User avatar #477 to #456 - thebritishguy (10/16/2013) [-]
I have never heard anybody say that the second amendment means that Americans shouldn't have guns, I'm calling ******** . I mean it even says "the right to bear arms"
#478 to #477 - apurpleliger (10/17/2013) [-]
No that's pretty much the entire conflict is who that right extends Some people say that the right to bear arms doesn't give citizens the right to own guns. The common argument is that the second amendment applies only to militia members, and since we don't have a militia, it is null and void.
User avatar #463 to #456 - thebritishguy (10/08/2013) [-]
Every single novel writer says that their story is fictional, this is where they are in the library, under the fictional section. But it's pretty bloody obvious that it would have been great use if it said that it was fictional, for hundreds of years people have believed these lies.
#469 to #463 - apurpleliger (10/14/2013) [-]
You're right, maybe we should have asked the countless people who contributed to the Bible to add in a footnote telling whether their part was fictitious or not. I'll go get my flux capacitor.
User avatar #470 to #469 - thebritishguy (10/14/2013) [-]
Obviously we can't do that but because they did not specify it makes the entire book invalid, because even if the book was from God it would be impossible to know what actually happened or what the book actually means.
#472 to #470 - apurpleliger (10/15/2013) [-]
Just because people aren't sure how they're supposed to interpret it doesn't mean that the entire thing is invalid. By that logic the United States wouldn't have a Constitution.
User avatar #475 to #472 - thebritishguy (10/15/2013) [-]
People have basic understanding of the principles of the constitution. People do not have any idea about even the most important and fundamental aspects of religion such as "do souls exist?" "does hell exist?" "was Jesus God?" "is half of this just metaphor?"
What you do not see is people on the street speaking ridiculous nonsense arguing whether the constitution means "the right to bear arms doesn't mean guns, it's talking about the arms of bears"
But furthermore the constitution is just about the principles of America and it was produced by mere mortals.
I mean there were some silly things in the constitution, they rant about the king, fallacies "we held this to be self evident" and there are phrases which have double meanings. The bible is supposed to be the word of God and the most important book of all.
#476 to #475 - apurpleliger (10/16/2013) [-]
But the Bible was also written and translated and retranslated by mere mortals. It is the Word of God, but the fact that there are so many different ways that it could have been translated means that the original message of the passages could have been lost long before the stories of the Bible were ever compiled into a single book.

Then on top of that you can read the Bible in different lights that would give you completely different answers from the same passages. There are people who argue that souls and hell do exist, and that Jesus was without a doubt God. They can provide justification from the Bible. But someone else can look at the same verses and get the exact opposite meaning out of it. People do the same thing with the Constitution. Gun rights supporters read the second amendment and think it means that citizens have a right to own firearms. Gun control supporters, on the other hand, read that amendment and think it means just the opposite, that citizens shouldn't own guns.

Maybe the Bible, like the Constitution, intentionally made parts of it vague because the writers did not want to make a definitive statement at the time?
#418 to #417 - apurpleliger (10/03/2013) [-]
The first "are meant".
#383 - xheavymetalx (10/03/2013) [-]
So... why is it socially acceptable for religious people (well, Christians specifically) to proclaim their religious beliefs and be "proud to be Christian" and claim that atheism is incorrect, but when an atheist does similar things people react like it's a hate crime?

Look, calling religion stupid is bad from a moral standpoint but Atheists shouldn't be criticized for simply talking about atheism in public as long as they're not trying to (un?)convert people. People act like it's the ******* work of the devil when you mention it.

pic unrelated
User avatar #421 to #383 - Kaiserlome (10/03/2013) [-]
~Calling relgion stupid isn't morally bad. It's good. People shouldn't make moral decisions off crazy delusional beliefs, and its morally good to stop them.

And I try to "unconvert" people all the time. That's a good thing.
User avatar #393 to #383 - thatoneiranianguy (10/03/2013) [-]
Who are these people you speak of? Most religious people I know don't give a flying **** . However I can see why though if people are annoyed by it, considering its mostly the atheists with the "debate me" look on their face that give Atheism such a fedora-esque bad rep.

<--- Example How Not To Defend Atheism
#409 to #393 - xheavymetalx (10/03/2013) [-]
First off, yea, people like that are ******* insane and ruin atheism for those of us who aren't ******* crazy. But if people judge the entirety of Atheism using that logic, the Westboro Baptist church should represent Christianity. Not very fair, is it?

Also, I live in Georgia so maybe that has something to do with it. But if people have the right to talk openly about Christianity or say stuff like "proud to be Christian" or whatever and get an "I respect your opinion" type response, then it only seems fair for it to work the other way too. But for most people if you identify yourself as Atheist and make it obvious, it's like you're "anti-God" or something

Sorry for the rant, I just think it's unfair (and again, this applies to all religions that aren't very openly represented)
User avatar #422 to #409 - Kaiserlome (10/03/2013) [-]
I am anti-god. Anti delusions and anti irrationality. And I will ALWAYS argue against them for the greater good.
User avatar #384 to #383 - citry (10/03/2013) [-]
where is your fedora?
#385 to #384 - xheavymetalx (10/03/2013) [-]
Wait, so just because I am atheist that means I have a fedora?

My statement applies to all religions, dude. All I'm saying is it's not fair to judge people because their religion/lack thereof doesn't "fit in".
#373 - greenwithenvy ONLINE (10/03/2013) [-]
My religion tells me that Gayness is a sin and is not good.... then later on in the book Jesus says to love everyone and it was 'kay
#370 - lolfire (10/03/2013) [-]
Pretty much agree.

Except for "psychics"

I hate those people with a ******* passion. They prey upon the weak and recently grieving families.
No one can talk to dead people. No one.
User avatar #380 to #378 - lolfire (10/03/2013) [-]
The girl's mother.
#367 - norrisblade (10/03/2013) [-]
This post sums up everything pretty good.
(looking for a good reaction pic in my downloads folder and I stumbled upon this)
User avatar #359 - rhinocerous **User deleted account** (10/03/2013) [-]
I look at gay people just as I do regular people. They can be ****** , or they can be nice. They can be considerate, or they can be selfish jerks. Gay does not=saint. Everybody has the potential to be horrid. Being gay does not automatically make me respect any more or less, no matter what they P.C.People tell me.
#360 to #359 - thecrakasmaker (10/03/2013) [-]
Gay people are regular people too.
#361 to #360 - rhinocerous **User deleted account** (10/03/2013) [-]
Isn't that what I just said?
#363 to #361 - thecrakasmaker (10/03/2013) [-]
You said, and I quote, "I look at gay people just as I do regular people.". That sentence there is implying that gay's are not regular people, you just look at them as though they were. Even though there is no such thing as "regular" people since we all have differences and can't base the idea of being regular off things that are not seen through a widely vast majority.
User avatar #423 to #363 - Kaiserlome (10/03/2013) [-]
What the hell is wrong with you? Can you not read between the lines at all? The guy obviously agrees with you on that and his point came across perfectly, for **** sake . . .
User avatar #366 to #363 - rhinocerous **User deleted account** (10/03/2013) [-]
Ok, I see what you mean. I probably should have worded that differently. Bottom line, gay makes no difference. It's somebody's personality and actions that determine how much respect they get from me.
User avatar #358 - tehlulzbringer (10/03/2013) [-]
yeah **** freedom of speech and whatnot
people should think the way you say they should think
User avatar #356 - franklinclinton (10/03/2013) [-]
This post actually gives me hope for humanity. I am Christian and I wouldn't care if you worshiped a rock , as long as you don't sham me or try to convert me, I don't do the same. UNITY
User avatar #355 - robinwilliamson (10/03/2013) [-]
Hold the **** up.

1.) 2 forms of fallacies: Composition fallacy and Strawman fallacy. First, the composition fallacy is that this is one of those people that thinks atheists mostly consist of excessive anti-theists who just want to put people down, which is not true, virtually all aims at religion are just criticism and frustration with delusions. (If you have beef with me because I used the word delusion, by all means, speak up.) And the Strawman is saying that these anti-theists are just arguing shame, which is very untrue, just view some past pages on our religion board.

2.) No true Scotsman. Whoever wrote that wants to believe that it's not part of the Christian doctrine for many interpretations to behave this way, thinking that the cherry picked apologetic denominations are what the religion should look more like, not realizing most if not all of the super friendly non-pushy believers got their moral advancement during the 18th century and growing into the 20th century from secular discussion and Plato's establishment of justice.
User avatar #346 - landerp (10/03/2013) [-]
I don't give a **** what you do or don't believe in, as long as you don't cast your judgements on me then I don't care. Worship cats for all I care, just don't come knocking on my door to tell me about cats or tell me I can't do something because the cats disapprove. If everyone would adopt the live and let live (or even better "I don't give a **** what you do and you shouldn't give a **** about what I do") then the world be be a much better place.
#339 - savyx (10/03/2013) [-]
**savyx rolled a random image posted in comment #39 at Onion fairy **
#336 - ohayougozaimasu (10/03/2013) [-]
Why is it not okay to express your distaste for religion/spirituality and claiming that they are silly? If I have evidence, and logic to support that evidence, that certain beliefs/ideologies are wrong or foolish, then there is nothing wrong with claiming that is so.

What is wrong is shaming religious or spiritual people, not the beliefs themselves. It's fundamentally different putting down a religious person than insulting or decrying their beliefs. If I were to call a religious person stupid simply because they hold beliefs that I don't find necessarily rational, that would not be okay. However, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to express my disagreement over their beliefs, because that's not actually hurting anybody.

It's okay to have opinions such as "religion is silly" or "atheism is silly" because you can have perfectly good reason to express them. I think what really is happening is that people are becoming too tolerant, up to the point of absurdity.

Next thing you know, we should never express our opinions at all that in any way, shape, or form insult something that somebody else likes. Let's not have rational discussion and/or arguments anymore, let's not engage in disagreement, let's say that we "respect" each others beliefs even if we completely disagree with them and have absolutely no reason to respect them in the first place.
User avatar #399 to #336 - spacehawk (10/03/2013) [-]
You mean intolerant, right? People are becoming more and more intolerant, thinking that just because something offends them, that gives them right to special treatment.
#407 to #399 - ohayougozaimasu (10/03/2013) [-]
intolerance: "unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own."

Well, not really. Intolerance would be unwillingly agreeing with someone else's beliefs, not thinking that you automatically have certain privileges because something offends you. I think it's more like "they have different beliefs and are automatically entitled to a non-decrying shield, therefore, they should never be made fun of, even if you think that making fun of them would prove a point." I would actually call that "unmerited self-entitlement."

When someone says "I'm offended by something that someone had all the reason to say, therefore, it's not okay," that's unmerited self-entitlement. When someone says "even if you don't agree with their beliefs, it is not okay for you to say they're silly, even if you have to in order to make a crucial point," that's unmerited self-entitlement. I believe anything and everything, given an appropriate environment, is fair game.

#408 to #407 - spacehawk (10/03/2013) [-]
Ok, you sold me
[ 468 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)