Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds


Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #72183 - ribocoon (06/15/2014) [-]
Jesus heals a gay man
#72167 - Conquistador (06/15/2014) [-]
>TFW stereotypical atheists are some of the least evolved people on fgay.
>TFW stereotypical atheists are some of the least evolved people on fgay.
User avatar #72184 to #72167 - thebritishguy (06/15/2014) [-]
"least evolved" wut
User avatar #72182 to #72167 - christmouth ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
"Evolved"
#72168 to #72167 - marinepenguin (06/15/2014) [-]
I don't think there are any of those kinds of atheists here. But the same could be said for any extreme version of any group ideals. Radical Islam, radical Christianity, radical Atheism, it's all the same level of extremism.
I don't think there are any of those kinds of atheists here. But the same could be said for any extreme version of any group ideals. Radical Islam, radical Christianity, radical Atheism, it's all the same level of extremism.
User avatar #72324 to #72285 - thebritishguy (06/16/2014) [-]
I think it's funny that the Amazing atheist is like in league with Stalin and mass murderers, he just makes funny videos and plays with bananas, damn.
User avatar #72327 to #72324 - gigamuffin (06/16/2014) [-]
Plays with bananas?
User avatar #72378 to #72327 - thebritishguy (06/17/2014) [-]
Not sure if serious.jpsrsg
Once upon a time AT was on a webcam chat to some girls and dribbled hot maple syrup all over his ass and then lovingly placed bananas up his ass, he also kissed the maple syrup with his balls which resulted in minor burns, his penis is pretty fucking small which makes it all the more hilarious. A few years later someone leaked the video onto the internet and hilarity ensued, I don't think the Amazing Atheist actually gave a fuck because he already told everyone he was into that kind of shit.
User avatar #72303 to #72285 - marinepenguin (06/16/2014) [-]
I wasn't claiming no religion was better?
User avatar #72169 to #72168 - Conquistador (06/15/2014) [-]
"I don't think there are any of those kinds of atheists here."
User avatar #72170 to #72169 - Conquistador (06/15/2014) [-]
top lel
User avatar #72171 to #72170 - marinepenguin (06/15/2014) [-]
Who would you consider an extreme atheist on this board then?
User avatar #72211 to #72171 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
8 used to frequent here.
User avatar #72214 to #72211 - marinepenguin (06/16/2014) [-]
Was he considered an extreme one? I never actually conversed with him.
User avatar #72216 to #72214 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"I hate religion (christianity, specifically) because I was raised by harsh christian parents (since that is how logic forms, and all backstories on the internet as generic as this are true). It wasn't until recently in my life that I learned logic and decided that atheism is the logical logic to go with. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, that's why I say religion is false."
User avatar #72246 to #72216 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
lol. Mom is an atheist and has been since she was 10. Dad believed in God, but didn't get into it until I was 13. However, I was force fed the idea of God from birth, and my mom's excuse for this was that she thought it would be good because that's what others do for their children.

It's true that atheism struck me mostly late teens, although, I'm not sure why you paint that negatively. If people ask me my story, I present it to them.

As for burden of proof, I'd say that's pretty common idea held amongst atheists, not sure why you single me out. Not sure I say religion is false either, I might have when I first started coming here though. I think religion in general is more negative than it is positive for societal health and so I think it's wrong/bad. Now on a personal level I might think it isn't true, but I'm not going to bother to try and prove that.

Anyways, I hope I've cleared that up for you.
User avatar #72247 to #72246 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, that's why I say religion is false."
You're "singled out" for the irony in the above statement. Think hard about it.
User avatar #72252 to #72247 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
Can't say I have any idea what you're talking about now.

I'm not a hard thinker, so you may have to spell it out for me.
User avatar #72253 to #72252 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
Think caaaaaaaaaaaaarefully about it.
User avatar #72256 to #72253 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
Honestly, don't have the interest. I just wanted to correct your mistakes about me, my childhood, teen hood, parents and so on. And I hope that in the future when you talk about my posts, as you seem to do often, you'll take these corrections into consideration, unless of course your intention is to be dishonest and misrepresenting which as noted by past arguments with me and with other posters here, is sort of your thing.
User avatar #72257 to #72256 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
Let's just look at what you've "corrected", then.

"If people ask me my story, I present it to them."
I'm not going to pick apart your entire story, since there's no substance to it that you're proving. For someone with a stance that typically demands evidence, you use this personal argument unfulfilled in proof. There's no reason for anyone to believe you other than their own sympathy (which, in formal debating, has no place), and, with the advent of lying on the internet, doesn't deserve any regard as truth at the moment.
Which is ironic, considering that all I did was apply atheistic thinking to your backstory.

"not sure why you single me out."
Let's look at that one statement again, since you can't quite figure it out.
"The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, that's why I say religion is false."
Let's take out seven words in order to expel the irony of the statement.
"is on the one making the claim, that's why I say"
The burden of proof regards any claim made, regardless of positive or negative value. You fail to present any evidence for your "Christianity is false" postings, even when you initiate the topic.
You've fallen into another trap with the above statement when you posted "Now on a personal level I might think it isn't true, but I'm not going to bother to try and prove that." I wasn't going to bother to root through dozens of replies to claim that you've asserted that "I'm not saying religion is false, even though that's what I believe" has been stated by you in the past, because you've practically proved my strawman for me!

That's all for your first post. Rather than prove me wrong or "correct", you're actually doing exactly as I predicted!

Now for your second post:
"Wow, misrepresentation off the map."
...A superfluous form of "Nuh uh!" Yes, I am corrected, alright...
0
#72262 to #72257 - rebornpooper has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #72261 to #72257 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
The irony here is, you're the one making claims about me and they are not accurate to what I've claimed my story is. You've taken it a step further.
User avatar #72263 to #72261 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
You're grasping for straws now, m8.
"to what I've claimed my story is"
"the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, which is why I say..."
I'm going to make this as blunt as I can: Your claim means nothing. I don't have to be "accurate" to your story when I claim that for all we know you're lying your ass off. For your attitude elsewhere, you've proven to fall into line with what I've posted (ironically) within this discussion all because somebody's saying mean things about the gr8 8.
User avatar #72265 to #72263 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
My back story has been used as an example. It's so that others, who likely went through similar scenarios, can relate to those experiences and not feel alone. I'm not sure I have ever seen a single atheist, especially those who are outspoken who don't do this. It's common because it gives perspective. It unites, motivates and encourages. And it's not specific to atheists, it's used this way all over for many different topics, including religion.

If you honestly think that I am using my personal experiences to try and prove that "relligion is false" then you just haven't been paying attention.
User avatar #72269 to #72265 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
I'm going to repeat myself again, since you're too dense to comprehend something after reading it only once:
When the logic used by atheists is applied to your debate tactics, your backstory means nothing.
Now, I'm going to elaborate with some truth.
Since you don't post any evidence for it, instead simply retelling it, any "relation" for it can be falsified. Now, I don't care about your pseudo-inspirational bullshit of it "uniting" people because, like you would argue organized religion does, it promotes unhealthy behavior and does more harm than good (in our comparison, teaches people that it's okay to accept ramblings on the internet).

"If you honestly think that I am using my personal experiences to try and prove that "relligion is false" then you just haven't been paying attention."
You are daft.
Please show me where I drew this line.
User avatar #72271 to #72269 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
GOT finale, sorry, I've given you enough time. It's been downloaded for like 45 minutes now.
#72272 to #72271 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
On no, I feel so honored to have the gr8 8 bless me with his time on the internet.
[/sarcasm]
User avatar #72259 to #72257 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
Errm, so when someone sees another posting lies about them, and that person makes an attempt to correct those lies, it's automatically some childish "Nuh uh!" remark? What kind of twisted reality do you live in?

User avatar #72264 to #72259 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"makes an attempt to correct those lies"
Considering that you're "correction" for the post referred to was, in its copy/pasted entirety "Wow, misrepresentation off the map.", I don't feel all that "corrected."
User avatar #72268 to #72264 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
You don't feel all that corrected? I agree. You weren't correct from the moment you hit the reply button.

This correction is more for the people who don't know me well or don't really follow my posts that see yours.

Anyways, I guess you somehow have knowledge about my life that even I don't.
User avatar #72274 to #72268 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"You don't feel all that corrected? I agree."
Gee wiz.... here we go...

"This correction is more for the people who don't know me well or don't really follow my posts that see yours."
I don't think that anyone here who doesn't know you is going to be swayed by "Wow, misrepresentation off the map."

"Anyways, I guess you somehow have knowledge about my life that even I don't."
It's apparent that you are selectively reading my posts to ignore the grand irony of "demand of evidence" vs "meaningless backstory", instead choosing to insult, mindlessly deny, and employ other evasive tactics to ignore this crucial point.
We are finished with this discussion, since you are not willing to listen to the counterargument.
User avatar #72226 to #72216 - marinepenguin (06/16/2014) [-]
I wouldn't say that's really extreme.
User avatar #72231 to #72226 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"Now excuse me while I make sure that my made-up backstory is the only evidence I propose while I routinely post about how much religion sucks and that religion has brought nothing but evil to the world. You disagree? You have a counterargument? Tough shit, I don't want to listen to your mindless babbling, moron. Atheism is the more logical choice, and since everyone is retarded but me and my atheist pals, that's not going to change. "
User avatar #72248 to #72231 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
Wow, misrepresentation off the map.
User avatar #72249 to #72248 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
Of course the one being insulted doesn't quite agree.
User avatar #72250 to #72249 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
Of course the one doing the insulting wouldn't agree either.
User avatar #72251 to #72250 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"You disagree? [...] Tough shit, I don't want to listen to your mindless babbling, moron."
User avatar #72254 to #72251 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
I could say the same about you. Of course, I generally don't go around talking about other posters negatively, even if I don't agree with their views.

Inb4, real world isn't nice.
User avatar #72255 to #72254 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
If you're trying to insult or anger me, you're making a wasted effort.
Other than recently with british (and I have my reasons for), when have I acted arrogant against my would-be opponent and ignored them?
User avatar #72258 to #72255 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
Wait, why would I be trying to insult or anger you? I'm just pointing out something that you're doing that I find to be indecent.

I'm just asking that when talking about other posters, make sure you have your facts right about their life, otherwise it's misrepresenting them. If you're unclear about something, just ask, don't make shit up. It's becoming more clear why you dislike me, because it isn't me that you dislike.
User avatar #72260 to #72258 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"Wait, why would I be trying to insult or anger you?"
The formal excuse is that "if" was included in the statement.
The informal one is because you suck at arguing.

"I'm just pointing out something that you're doing that I find to be indecent."
The only thing that you're specifying is that I talked shit about you as being "indecent" with nothing else at the time but generic insulting and weak disagreement...
Which is a moot point anyway because marine started the subtopic of atheist users that could be portrayed in a certain manner.

"If you're unclear about something, just ask, don't make shit up."
That's cute. I suppose you have proof that I'm lying?

"It's becoming more clear why you dislike me, because it isn't me that you dislike."
Let one of us be completely honest for a moment when I say this: I'm not redirecting my dislike for someone/something else onto you. I don't like you. I don't like users who use backstories on the internet, unproven ones at that in a place where people commonly lie in formal debating. I don't like users who adopt an arrogant tone or try to assert their own victory mid-discussion. Last, but not least, I don't like users who tell me what I do and do not like.
User avatar #72266 to #72260 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
You don't like users that use back stories. The end.
Is that really enough to dislike an entire person over? In my opinion, such dislike is irrational.

And be honest, am I the only one here who has posted their back stories or used them as examples?
User avatar #72273 to #72266 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"You keep saying that and you keep hitting the reply button."
lolwut?

"I don't do it very often"
Considering your massive over-crediting of yourself, I'm not going to take your word for it.

"Anyways, I hope you've learned from these discussions the importance of dbad."
...If I talk shit about a user, said user will whine about it?
No, I didn't learn anything apart from that.
User avatar #72267 to #72266 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
"You disagree? You have a counterargument? Tough shit, I don't want to listen to your mindless babbling, moron. Atheism is the more logical choice, and since everyone is retarded but me and my atheist pals, that's not going to change."
Wow. I am almost spot on again. Change "Atheism is the more logical choice" to "I am the more logical debater here" and we have what was formerly a strawman into an analysis.

"And be honest, am I the only one here who has posted their back stories or used them as examples?"
You're one of the rare ones that routinely mentions it in serious discussion as if it means something.
User avatar #72270 to #72267 - eight (06/16/2014) [-]
You keep saying that and you keep hitting the reply button.

I don't do it very often and I did more so when I first started here, but I literally was uneducated in some of the most basic arguments and I was still claiming to be agnostic.

Now, you've kept me from Game of Thrones finale and I'm going to go enjoy that now.

Anyways, I hope you've learned from these discussions the importance of dbad.
User avatar #72243 to #72231 - marinepenguin (06/16/2014) [-]
Well there we go. You've convinced me.
User avatar #72172 to #72171 - Conquistador (06/15/2014) [-]
o boi 2 mani 2 choos
#72173 to #72172 - marinepenguin (06/15/2014) [-]
Such a compelling argument.
User avatar #72174 to #72173 - Conquistador (06/15/2014) [-]
>Not seeing the obvious.

nigelthenignog, kanadetengei, possibly you, and probably half of the community here.
User avatar #72175 to #72174 - marinepenguin (06/15/2014) [-]
I don't know the first guy

He's a pagan, not atheist.

me atheist? lol
User avatar #72179 to #72175 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
Pantheist actually.
User avatar #72180 to #72179 - marinepenguin (06/15/2014) [-]
My apologies. Got the first few letters right at least.
User avatar #72176 to #72175 - Conquistador (06/15/2014) [-]
Hmm... I may see why that Arab guy whines about pagans so much.
User avatar #72177 to #72176 - marinepenguin (06/15/2014) [-]
No idea honestly, Christianity and Islam took a good portion of paganism and put it in their old testament when the religions formed.
User avatar #72162 to #72153 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
I noticed how Singer's critics never actually adress his arguments head on but instead go on a red herring parade and use out of context quotes of him that are completely irrelevant on the discussion at hand.
User avatar #72147 - revengeforfreeze (06/15/2014) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL556NQXlv4
rebornpooper
aczzoh
nigeltheoutlaw
I think Sam Harris is probably one of the most just atheists I know
User avatar #72156 to #72147 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
I don't care for his strawmanning much. Other than that, can somebody tell me why his face reminds me of Will Ferrell?
User avatar #72157 to #72156 - revengeforfreeze (06/15/2014) [-]
In what way is he strawmanning? You're saying things like that don't happen?

You're thinking of Ben Stiller
User avatar #72159 to #72157 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
For one thing, he's assuming that the people dead were "good" without knowing each of them.
Second, one simple google search ("bible help your neighbor") discredits his assumption of the bible teaching self-preservation rather than compassion for others I found one website with a list of quotes directly from the book, giving me one that I'm going to use against a few select First World christfags I know (1 John 3:17) .
Third, he implies heavily that non-secular individuals who help others do not do so for the benefit of others, but to spread their religion. Just because someone with a religion goes to Africa or other third-world areas to help people, they want to do so to spread their beliefs and not because of any compassion found within their heart?
"And I think it's more nobel [than helping because the creator of the universe told you to]". I really get a sour taste in my mouth when he says this.

Yes, I am thinking of Ben Stiller. I am terrible with Hollywood names.
User avatar #72161 to #72159 - revengeforfreeze (06/15/2014) [-]
Wut? What do you define as 'good' or 'evil'?
It doesn't matter what they think; what matters is how they use it. I know that some use religion as a platform to feel better about themselves while not living 'pure' and 'morally good' lives.
I don't really agree with him there, considering they're doing what they think is good. But it does actually spread damage when you do, as a catholic, and you say that condoms are bad, that you need to have 'real sex' so to speak.
User avatar #72178 to #72161 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
>What do you define as 'good' or 'evil'?
Unless I define 'good' as something broad and/or meaningless that applies to all persons in the hurricane ("they lived as humans"), I can't really say that everyone that was a victim was "good", since I don't know every human that was a casualty. I have my doubts that Harris knows each individual victim as well, instead using this for grounds of a weak morality/sympathy argument.

Considering though that he fails with this point because of his misconception of what the bible says, I don't even know what to argue against since Harris doesn't seem to be proposing anything besides his strawman at this point.

>It doesn't matter what they think
Harris makes it very clear that he shows a bias that differs from your statement here, judging by "nobility" for the motive. What exactly does "nobility" have to do with this, since his own heavy bias of what appeals to him is apparent to the viewer?

I've already stated that Harris fails to firmly grasp what said "dogma" he's criticizing (more specifically the religion of Christianity) contains, yet Harris seems to recognize the neglected portions later on as "the creator of the universe telling you to." Harris doesn't seem apparent on keeping consistent, only recognizing what the other party seems to think when it seems convenient for his propaganda. This is supposed to be just behavior?
It's also worth noting that Harris doesn't apply "built-in" compassion to the credit of any religious individual. It's only the secular individuals that he gives this credit openly to.

Hell, just what is his point when he mentions compassion? Humanity's "compassion" was part of the reason that Africa was exploited and turned into a shithole before the Catholic Church's policy against condoms (which he conveniently throws in so that he has something factual to mention).

Overall, another pompous writer spouting pseudo-inspirational bullshit that contains no real point other than "I don't like religion!"
#72151 to #72147 - dehumanizer (06/15/2014) [-]
i dont even have to say it...
User avatar #72189 to #72151 - christmouth ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
Nobody asked for your opinion
#72280 to #72189 - dehumanizer (06/16/2014) [-]
call the internet police
User avatar #72152 to #72151 - revengeforfreeze (06/15/2014) [-]
Which is why I didn't summon you
0
#72146 - ribocoon has deleted their comment [-]
#72141 - aczzoh ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #72163 to #72143 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
That Budgie looks overweight as fuck.
User avatar #72181 to #72163 - teoberry (06/15/2014) [-]
fucking fatphobics >:^(
#72164 to #72163 - dehumanizer (06/15/2014) [-]
it belongs to JonTron
User avatar #72165 to #72164 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
Jontron has a Green Cheeked Conure.
#72166 to #72165 - dehumanizer (06/15/2014) [-]
i think he got a new one, idk im almost completly sure the gif (without cola girl) is riped from one of his eppisodes
User avatar #72140 - swagasauruss ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
Cain kills Able then takes a goat for a wife...

This concludes Swagasauruss's contribution to the Religion Board, If questions arise please make inquiries as a reply.
User avatar #72132 - tehbestever (06/15/2014) [-]
relgion, more like smcheligion am i right
#72326 to #72132 - TexMex (06/16/2014) [-]
Well I thought it was funny.
User avatar #72122 - noblexfenrir (06/15/2014) [-]
Haven't had internet for a week, suffice to say it's basically what I imagine my hell like. No internet, hot as fuck, and forced to carry a couch up and down stairs for an eternity. Modern day Sisyphus right here.

Anyways, anyone have anything to discuss?
User avatar #72154 to #72122 - eight (06/15/2014) [-]
Good thing we made it through the dark ages. We might not have had internet today!
User avatar #72115 - ThatFatMummy (06/14/2014) [-]
There is no hell.

Any father (or any other god) who supposedly loves all of his children would not see them suffer eternally, but rather unmake them. Torturing you does no good.

"Why does god not prevent evil?

Is he willing but not able? Then he is impotent.

Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?"
User avatar #72185 to #72115 - thebritishguy (06/15/2014) [-]
False dichotomy, an evil God is just as probable, if not more probable considering our home, than a loving God. So just because a loving God couldn't make a hell doesn't mean there is no hell, there could be an evil God.
User avatar #72187 to #72185 - ThatFatMummy (06/15/2014) [-]
I don't believe in perfect gods.
User avatar #72134 to #72115 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
I would love to type a long and thoughtful paragraph to answer this question, mentioning how atheists basically took the exact definition of sin, gave it a minor twist, then accidently started to refer to themselves as dedicated sin by definition, but since you're clearly an autistic faggot with both an agenda and your mind already made up regarding this question, here's a link:
You need to login to view this link
0
#72148 to #72134 - kanadetenshi has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #72136 to #72134 - ThatFatMummy (06/15/2014) [-]
I'm not atheist.

Don't assume shit.

I just really don't believe that if there's a loving god for us, that he would let that go on.
And whatever's in that link won't change that, but I'll read it anyway
#72138 to #72136 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
"I'm not atheist.

Don't assume shit."

"There is no hell.

Any father (or any other god) who supposedly loves all of his children would not see them suffer eternally, but rather unmake them. Torturing you does no good."

"I just really don't believe that if there's a loving god for us"

(X) Doubt
User avatar #72139 to #72138 - ThatFatMummy (06/15/2014) [-]
Okay well in my religion there is no hell. In kemeticism, if someone leads an evil life, they're kind of erased after a few seconds of pain, because ma'at would rather put us to sleep than watch us suffer for eternity.

Saying that I don't believe in hell shouldn't make anyone assume I'm atheist, or autistic for that matter.
User avatar #72155 to #72139 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
I stand corrected. You're referring to the type of thinking along the lines of "second death?"
User avatar #72160 to #72155 - ThatFatMummy (06/15/2014) [-]
according to my religion:
In the beginning, for all eternity past, there was nothing, except for the primordial waters of chaos called "Nun", which I like to imagine is just random firings of energy and matter.

Well, theres a mathematically correct theory that an infinite number of chimpanzees and an infinite number of typewriters with an infinite amount of time would eventually, even if by accident, write the works of Shakespeare.

Using that same theory, I think all this random matter and energy would form into anything and everything; nun does have infinite time, energy and resources.

Well there's a demon called Apep that is the living version of non-existence, portrayed as a giant flaming snake. Whatever it eats turns back into nun, and has to wait infinitely to randomly be put back together naturally. So every time nun would shape into something, Apep would eat it.

Until eventually nun created a god capable of escaping Apep (since mathematically, it would have to eventually anyway), and had the power to form nun into whatever he wants. That god was Ra, and he made the universe.

But when we die, if we're evil, he and ma'at send you to Apep to be eaten and unmade, and break us back down into our smallest parts and once again become the infinite waters of Nun.
User avatar #72124 to #72115 - satoshileex (06/15/2014) [-]
Since it seems you are talking about the Christian God the reason why he is able but does not is not because he is malevolent but because it supposedly would no longer make him holy were he to take evil out of the world. That act of taking the negative action away without punishment would be unbalance and then he could not truly be called God or something like that I think.
User avatar #72137 to #72124 - ThatFatMummy (06/15/2014) [-]
Well I was using that quote for the whole hell thing.

Replace evil with hell
User avatar #72299 to #72137 - satoshileex (06/16/2014) [-]
Sorry I didn't look that clearly, But I don't understand why people wouldn't be punished through hell if others are rewarded through heaven or life/existence.
User avatar #72315 to #72299 - ThatFatMummy (06/16/2014) [-]
Because it doesn't do any good.
User avatar #72337 to #72315 - satoshileex (06/16/2014) [-]
It does though, because it is a good because it is just. Now if good does not include just it is not good.
User avatar #72343 to #72337 - ThatFatMummy (06/17/2014) [-]
Justice and love are two separate things.

Imagine your child, or sibling, or parents or significant other. If you found out they killed some people, and you had to choose to either end their existence or make them scream eternally, what would you choose?
User avatar #72379 to #72343 - satoshileex (06/17/2014) [-]
While they are separate they can't be separate in action. You can still love someone while justly punishing them.

I understand what you are saying but that is not your choice in the first place, if any's it is the family or friends of those they killed. But it depends on their reason for killing, if they did it for what might be considered an amoral reason then, I would punish but if they didn't and I absolutely had to choose I would just end their existence.
User avatar #72380 to #72379 - ThatFatMummy (06/17/2014) [-]
God isn't supposed to be a god of justice. He's not seen as a judge. He's seen as a father. An all-loving father.

Hell is not loving. Infinite burning, gashing, screaming, eye-gouging, tongue ripping and any other horrific pain you can think of, is NOT loving. He's the boss of the universe; he decides what is an appropriate punishment. He just so happens to choose the worst fate possible for the less perfect "children" he is father of.

According to you, anyway.
But I believe that if there is a god, then he's not as loving as you'd think, OR hell doesn't exist, at least not the way it's described in most literature.
User avatar #72398 to #72380 - satoshileex (06/17/2014) [-]
How do you know what god is supposed to be? And I don't which God you are talking about but if it is the Christian one he has been described as both and more than that.

Your statement is a little presumptuous, We really don't know what hell is. Only that the people who are evil go there. Also who knows what is the best or worse fate for people in general? A god wouldn't just so happen to choose to put people in hell because it can, If a god is as we describe them. They would have a reason for placing people where they are placed.

What is according to me?
That's fine to believe that but what are you trying to say by mentioning that? Also again we don't know what hell is like...so any literature that talks about it is just speculation.
User avatar #72410 to #72398 - ThatFatMummy (06/17/2014) [-]
"Any literature that talks about it is just speculation".

You going atheist on me, bro?
User avatar #72453 to #72410 - satoshileex (06/17/2014) [-]
I still don't know what book you are using so I'm going off of what I think you are.
User avatar #72452 to #72410 - satoshileex (06/17/2014) [-]
No, but in the bible (I might have to do some rechecking) it simply states hell as either the opposite of heaven or the absence of God.
User avatar #72459 to #72452 - ThatFatMummy (06/17/2014) [-]
Then if I believed in god, I would believe hell is just the absence of him. Because god is in everything and is everywhere, all the time right?

So hell, or the absence of god, would be nothing, nowhere, in no particular time. Nothingness.
#72118 to #72115 - dehumanizer (06/14/2014) [-]
but Anon, this life IS hell
#72123 to #72118 - anonymous (06/15/2014) [-]
wow, how edgy
#72142 to #72123 - dehumanizer (06/15/2014) [-]
If you think im edgy then you should check your privilige.
#72119 to #72118 - dehumanizer (06/14/2014) [-]
also your quote is stupid and unoriginal
#72095 - dehumanizer (06/14/2014) [-]
Mark 14:51-52
51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

...

Okay fedora tippers, tell me what you make of this quote.
User avatar #72129 to #72117 - teoragnar (06/15/2014) [-]
"I'm fucking off."
Feely the Feel, 06/12/2014.
#72130 to #72129 - feelythefeel (06/15/2014) [-]
The situation has improved dramatically.
User avatar #72131 to #72130 - teoragnar (06/15/2014) [-]
Alright then.
User avatar #72102 to #72095 - thebritishguy (06/14/2014) [-]
Jesus is the only man who can get nailed by a group of men and be loved by radical Christians.
*tips fedora*
User avatar #72101 to #72095 - christmouth ONLINE (06/14/2014) [-]
Jesus had the gays
User avatar #72158 to #72101 - christmouth ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
syrianassassin why thumb me down?
User avatar #72275 to #72158 - syrianassassin ONLINE (06/16/2014) [-]
oy VEY

I AM SORRY
#72085 - anonymous (06/14/2014) [-]
huehuehue
huehuehue
User avatar #72086 to #72085 - marinepenguin (06/14/2014) [-]
HA! Haven't heard that one before....
#72133 to #72086 - ribocoon (06/15/2014) [-]
in cace u wont
in cace u wont
User avatar #72097 to #72086 - revengeforfreeze (06/14/2014) [-]
I hide all all anons who spout old, overused joke
User avatar #72069 - ribocoon (06/14/2014) [-]
I think most of us can agree that we have a moral obligation to make choices that reduce suffering
But do we have a moral obligation to make choices that promote pleasure (it's not a sexy word, just the best opposite of suffering I could come up with)?

Scenario: heaven and hell are real, only 2 people exist in heaven (both of whom experience pure pleasure) and 1 person exists in hell (who experiences pure suffering) the total amount of pleasure in the universe is double that of suffering. You have a button that could end the consciousness of all 3 people. No more pleasure for the 2 in heaven, and no more suffering for the 1 in hell. What is the moral decision? Is robbing the 2 people of their eternal future pleasure worse than letting someone suffer for all eternity? Am I just letting my emotions for the poor fuck in hell get in the way of logic?

Another scenario: there is only 1 person in heaven and 1 person in hell. Do you still press the button? Or does the equal suffering/pleasure ratio make either decision equally amoral?

kanadetenshi has a nice thought process, and remarks?
User avatar #72125 to #72069 - satoshileex (06/15/2014) [-]
To me it is more amoral to make a choice that affects someone else without their consent. You already know the one in hell doesn't want to be there. But the two in heaven would have no choice in the matter so no do press it. If the button worked in an equivalent exchange then yes but you only have the right to exchange your own life not someone else's.
User avatar #72114 to #72069 - eight (06/14/2014) [-]
I don't want anyone to suffer for eternity, no one deserves that punishment. I'd press it.

If they didn't live life to its fullest while they were still alive, that's on them. They should have focused on the life they had, not what they might have had after death.
User avatar #72106 to #72069 - nigeltheoutlaw (06/14/2014) [-]
TheFatMummy is right. Infinite pleasure X 2 is the same: infinite. It's not double just because the people are doubled. And yes, I would press it because having people experience nothing but suffering for eternity for finite deeds is fucking retarded.
User avatar #72099 to #72069 - ThatFatMummy (06/14/2014) [-]
2 people in heaven = infinite pleasure
1 person in hell = infinite pain

1 person in heaven = infinite pleasure
1 person in hell = infinite pain

250000 people in heaven = infinite pleasure
250000 people in hell = infinite pain

From a mathematical point of view, the same way a computer would handle the situation, the ratio of people in hell/heaven doesn't matter as long as there's at least 1 person in each because the pain/pleasure produced from either is infinite.

But any man would know that there is in fact a difference, and different instances of these eternities.


But when it comes down to it, if there's a heaven and hell, the moral thing to do would not press the button because there's obviously a god in this case, and it would be against his will for you to do so. Even if there's only one person in heaven and 10 billion people in hell.
User avatar #72135 to #72099 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/15/2014) [-]
Damn, nice loophole there.
User avatar #72098 to #72069 - revengeforfreeze (06/14/2014) [-]
I would.
User avatar #72096 to #72069 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (06/14/2014) [-]
Minimizing pain should be a priority over maximizing pleasure. Since you cannot logically minimize the pain of the people in heaven but you can minimize the pain of the person in hell the moral thing to do is to press the button.

However even if you where to press that button or not you'd be violating the preference of either, by pressing the button you violate the preference of the people to stay in heaven but by not pressing you violate the preference of the person wanting to end his suffering. So both in the end would be amoral, it depends on where your priority lies.
User avatar #72110 to #72096 - ribocoon (06/14/2014) [-]
I like the idea of creating a priority of reducing suffering over promoting pleasure. I have a habit of viewing the two as polar opposites and that one might be able to cancel the other out. Sort of like a math problem. If you have more pleasure you get a positive number, and if you have more suffering you get a negative number.

The entire population of humanity will live in perfect harmony and pleasure in heaven. But you will live in hell for all eternity. You are given the option to opt-out of the whole thing by pressing a button that will end the consciousness of every being, including you. I feel like the right thing to do is to take the big one for the team and just suffer in hell, but I don't know if I could actually do it if put to the test. What do you think?
User avatar #72112 to #72110 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (06/14/2014) [-]
I'd say it's a morally permissable thing to do so.

Let's use another way of putting it, say you and another man got stranded on an island with no food whatsoever and you will both probably die if you cannot eat something very soon, however you will survive long enough to be rescued if you kill and eat the other man. So when you're placed with the outcome of both dying or him dying for your survival would you do it?

If you say yes then logically the heaven/hell dilemma would also be a yes, in fact my example would be more immoral than the heaven/hell example because where as you inflict harm on a person to minimize your harm in the island situation you do not inflict harm on those people to minimize your harm, you end their pleasure sure, but they won't suffer from it.
User avatar #72113 to #72112 - ribocoon (06/14/2014) [-]
assuming that both you and the other man will experience and inflict the same amount of suffering and pleasure afterwards of being rescued, than I suppose it really doesn't matter who dies.
User avatar #72092 to #72069 - cleverguy (06/14/2014) [-]
utilitarianism doesnt work. dont press the button, you make no moral choice because you have no moral obligation
User avatar #72094 to #72092 - princessren (06/14/2014) [-]
note to self
cleverguy would let someone suffer for eternity
check: just as bad as Abrahamic God
User avatar #72111 to #72094 - cleverguy (06/14/2014) [-]
i didn't put them in that position so i have no moral connection to their suffering, thus i have no moral obligation to help them
User avatar #72120 to #72111 - princessren (06/15/2014) [-]
meanie bo beanie
User avatar #72121 to #72120 - cleverguy (06/15/2014) [-]
ad hominem
User avatar #72074 to #72069 - teoragnar (06/14/2014) [-]
Define heaven, hell, suffering, pleasure.
User avatar #72072 to #72069 - princessren (06/14/2014) [-]
why are there only 2 people in heaven and 1 person in hell?
what happens to everyone else
User avatar #72075 to #72072 - ribocoon (06/14/2014) [-]
heaven and hell are just conveniently well understood places with already defined qualities of suffering and pleasure
They aren't actually essential to the question
User avatar #72076 to #72075 - princessren (06/14/2014) [-]
that's for me to decide
I would like to know why these people are in these places and most people aren't
I want to know how it works
User avatar #72077 to #72076 - ribocoon (06/14/2014) [-]
I'll start with this than
Hitler is in hell
you are given the option to end his consciousness and save him from eternal torture
do you?
User avatar #72078 to #72077 - princessren (06/14/2014) [-]
hm....I would want to say sure, if there were no ill consequences
but at the same time I am wary of playing God
User avatar #72079 to #72078 - ribocoon (06/14/2014) [-]
God doesn't exist in these scenarios
No one is going to punish you or judge you based on what you do
User avatar #72080 to #72079 - princessren (06/14/2014) [-]
I would still be playing God though hm
...but still....if God doesn't exist, how did they get there
User avatar #72081 to #72080 - ribocoon (06/14/2014) [-]
I can tell you're going to pick this apart
Se here is one with more effort

The universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster
After 1,000 years, the flying spaghetti monster died and floated off into space and will never come back
But before he died he created a lottery
3 people out of the history of human existence, all of which were normal people who didn't do any great acts of good or evil, would be selected to have themselves carbon copied into another dimension.
2 would go to a dimension where they experienced pure ecstasy and joy
1 would go to a dimension where they experienced pure pain and suffering.
Other than these 3 people, the atheists were right and everyone else just died.
The flying spaghetti monster also set up a second lottery before he died.
1 person out of the entire existence of humanity would be selected to push a red button that would end the consciousness of the other 3 people.
You are that person. Do you press the button?
User avatar #72082 to #72081 - princessren (06/14/2014) [-]
ok, sure I guess...the flying spaghetti monster is a strange one
User avatar #72083 to #72082 - ribocoon (06/14/2014) [-]
now tell me why
what was your thought process?
User avatar #72084 to #72083 - princessren (06/14/2014) [-]
well I mean...you say it was all chance and they are all just normal people not even like...really good or really bad people
so it kinda ruins the moral dilemma of the whole "do they really deserve it or not" thing
I mean I suppose there is still the, should you take away peoples pleasure thing or whatever...but I mean...seems unfair to that one guy to suffer forever while most people have nothing happen to them or are living in pleasure
#72067 - anonymous (06/14/2014) [-]
I call, I cling, I want ... and there is no One to answer ... no One on Whom I can cling ... no, No One. Alone ... Where is my Faith ... even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness ... My God ... how painful is this unknown pain ... I have no Faith ... I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart ... & make me suffer untold agony.

So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them ... because of the blasphemy ... If there be God ... please forgive me ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. I am told God loves me ... and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.
User avatar #72103 to #72067 - thebritishguy (06/14/2014) [-]
Go back to tumblr
#72056 - alekksandar (06/13/2014) [-]
>religion board
>religion-less people come to disprove religion
>wonder why we hate them
User avatar #72186 to #72056 - thebritishguy (06/15/2014) [-]
Well we are responding to the religious people, I think the relationships on this board are symbiotic, without atheists the theists wouldn't have anyone to preach to and without theists we atheists would just be having a circle jerk and wouldn't be able to make their points known to the theists.
#72357 to #72186 - rebornpooper ONLINE (06/17/2014) [-]
"without theists we atheists would just be having a circle jerk and wouldn't be able to make their points known to the theists"
User avatar #72371 to #72357 - thebritishguy (06/17/2014) [-]
Yeah I should have said
*we atheists would be having an even bigger circle jerk to the extent that the words "no homo" would not suffice
User avatar #72126 to #72056 - satoshileex (06/15/2014) [-]
They have every right to disprove it but if you truly have faith in whatever you believe their attempts shouldn't really hinder your faith...
#72073 to #72056 - anonymous (06/14/2014) [-]
I think you have a false preconception of that somebody actaully cares about who you hate.
#72068 to #72056 - anonymous (06/14/2014) [-]
And we will continue to do so until r/atheism stops being so edgy
inb4 someone claims religion is a topic
User avatar #72062 to #72056 - lulzfornigeriagirl (06/13/2014) [-]
fuckin aleksandr
User avatar #72060 to #72056 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (06/13/2014) [-]
Since when did anyone here try to disprove religion?
#72091 to #72060 - anonymous (06/14/2014) [-]
When haven't you?
User avatar #72059 to #72056 - eight (06/13/2014) [-]
>Believes in a religion
>Thinks they don't have burden of proof
>Pushes burden onto non-believers
>Wonders why non-believers make a fuss
#72058 to #72056 - dehumanizer (06/13/2014) [-]
B-but religion is e-evil! I-it causes war and ... and bigoutry!
#72071 to #72058 - anonymous (06/14/2014) [-]
Thank God that he sent you here to put the non-believers back to the dark ages.
#72046 to #72042 - anonymous (06/13/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolled image** you are faggot
**anonymous rolled image** you are faggot
#72041 - anonymous (06/13/2014) [-]
Why would it be so wrong to say that a person who needs objective morality to keep them in check is weak minded? Isn't it true? If you need someone to tell you what to do, then you are not independent with your mode of thinking and you lack self control.
 Friends (0)