Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#1584 - nyancatfuckyeah
Reply +5
(05/04/2012) [-]
#1603 to #1584 - Sethorein
Reply -4
(05/04/2012) [-]
comparing something that was written before the printing press and casual reading was common... to something made long after the printing press made expressly for the sake of entertainment...

GENIUS
#1728 to #1603 - anon
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
How was 8th grade this year Seth?
#1740 to #1728 - Sethorein
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
says the man hiding behind anonymity
#1773 to #1740 - anon
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
I'm anonymous and you're retarded. So what?
We're both behind computers and even if we weren't I would still say what is on my mind. I don't like to lie.
#1845 to #1773 - Sethorein
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
difference is that I'm accepting red thumbs for my opinions and you aren't. Despite the fact that they have the value of monopoly money, having the integrity to put your name by your beliefs is something to be admired far more than anonymously shouting slander.
#1609 to #1603 - Daemonseed
Reply +1
(05/04/2012) [-]
Your argument makes exactly zero sense.
#1619 to #1609 - Sethorein
Reply -4
(05/04/2012) [-]
Oh really? There were no casual readers in the ancient world. All texts had a purpose ascribed to them, be it for recording algebra, philosophy, or legal documents, the rare commodity of parchment and papyrus was something that was rarely wasted. So to compare something like the bible, that was written back in a time where every work was made with a purpose to something which could be printed thousands of time with little to no expense... It seems a bit callous and rude to be honest.
#1628 to #1619 - Daemonseed
Reply +1
(05/04/2012) [-]
Yes, because the authors wrote the books within the Tanakh only with reprinting costs in mind.
#1648 to #1628 - Sethorein
Reply -2
(05/04/2012) [-]
They wouldn't be able to afford it unless they were in the upper class of society, yes. There's a certain aspect of questioning why something would continue to be reprinted if it's just some crappy book with no basis in fact at all when it costs insane amounts of gold just to get one copy...
#1658 to #1648 - Daemonseed
Reply -3
(05/04/2012) [-]
Yeah exactly, because if you can afford to get it printed and copied, then it is factual.
#1682 to #1658 - Sethorein
Reply -1
(05/04/2012) [-]
You'd want it to be proven factual before printing it...
#1687 to #1682 - Daemonseed
Reply -1
(05/04/2012) [-]
Yup. So in your defense, every single religious text is true, and every god and afterlife written about is true.
I'm converted.
#1696 to #1687 - Sethorein
Reply -1
(05/04/2012) [-]
All could be true.
#1701 to #1696 - Daemonseed
Reply -1
(05/04/2012) [-]
And so could be a warping Heineken bottle inside a 2 millimetre peanut shell in a volcanic crater.
If I invest my finances in writing a book about that, does it add credulity to the hypothesis?
#1726 to #1701 - Sethorein
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
well see, this is why I lack faith.

I just never could make the jump in saying that God is real. I can respect the work. But the leap of faith... not so much.

All is true and all is false until we choose which is which. You've decided that religion is false, I have as well. Does that mean it must be despised?
#1734 to #1726 - Daemonseed
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
Who mentioned despising it?
#1744 to #1734 - Sethorein
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
this entire thread began because I disapproved of equating the bible to an issue of spiderman.

I'd say one is slightly more influential to man's development than the other...
#1748 to #1744 - Daemonseed
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
Influence to mans development has no relevance to the current debate.
#1753 to #1748 - Sethorein
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
perhaps. But you must be able to see WHY there is a problem comparing the bible to spiderman when you claim to approve of all views...

I find it funny that both of us are getting red thumbs
#1756 to #1753 - Daemonseed
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
I don't particularly care about thumbs tbh. Probably because we're debating.
I am drunk as **** right now. I'll respond in a few hours when I've finished college and caught a few zzz's.
#1709 to #1701 - Daemonseed
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
Bearing in mind, that Heineken bottle created YHWH.
#1608 to #1603 - nyancatfuckyeah
Reply +1
(05/04/2012) [-]
take your religious views to church bud, no one gives a **** here.
take your religious views to church bud, no one gives a **** here.
#1623 to #1608 - Sethorein
Reply -2
(05/04/2012) [-]
it's sad because I'm not religious, I just respect religion and bother to actually read the book that I don't believe in. You'd be surprised at some of the things you can learn from it even if you don't ascribe to a belief in God...
#1693 to #1623 - Daemonseed
Reply -1
(05/04/2012) [-]
Why do you respect religion?
What aspects of it makes it worthy of respect.
And this is a serious question, by the way. Not trying to annoy you, or debate.
#1705 to #1693 - Sethorein
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
because much like any ideology or school of thought it is worth considering before refuting. Aristotle was wrong about almost all of his assertions, yet still we admire him and his peers. Why? Because Greek thought inspired contemporary thought. Similarly, even if religion is completely archaic and wrong, we can still learn it for the sake of reflecting on its applications to our modern day society.
#1712 to #1705 - Daemonseed
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
There is a difference between respect and learning.
Nothing deserves respect by default.
Respect must be earned.
And not by being a blood thirsty archaic way of controlling the herd.
#1737 to #1712 - Sethorein
Reply +1
(05/04/2012) [-]
We're talking ancient texts here. Blood was the name of the game back then. It's kind of unfair to enforce 21st century values on religions made in 800 BCE... Society was arguably primitive and it's a wonder a work that preached any form of morality ever managed to take root. It was much easier to worship idols and commit all kinds of horrid things to your neighbours for self benefit. I consider it a stepping stone. Like evolution. We started off primitive and uncivilised and as we steadily climbed upward in sophisticated thought we created a text that would scare those too brutish to be civil into being civil while we continued to advance... Nowadays Religion may have lost its use but still, it helped us get here to an extent. A lot of modern principles have roots in religion.
#1745 to #1737 - Daemonseed
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
We were always civilised. Morality is a reflection of the zeitgeist, the ideologies of the times. You cannot consider the Bible, or any religious text, as a stepping stone. It is either absolute, or absolute ********.
#1749 to #1745 - Sethorein
Reply +1
(05/04/2012) [-]
it had to be absolute. Otherwise, as you said, the morality of the times would have taken control of us. What do you think advanced our moral perspectives? It certainly wasn't the Greeks. They believed that sick children should be killed to leave more food for strong children. Religion introduced individual rights to a species that had previously only thought in a utilitarian fashion.
#1754 to #1749 - Daemonseed
Reply -1
(05/04/2012) [-]
Morality is subjective, not objective and absolute. It evolves. And that is not an argument for religion,
#1844 to #1754 - Sethorein
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
sorry for not replying, I passed out.

I'm saying that it introduced absolute morality which helped to create a sort of safe net for us to...well survive... With that safety we were able to develop our own intellectual theories and evolve. I'm just saying what religion gave us, not that it's true. Remember, I'm not religious xD
#1627 to #1623 - nyancatfuckyeah
Reply +3
(05/04/2012) [-]
I understand your reasoning but if there's one thing I can't stand it's people who force their beliefs and ideals on other people, convinced that they're right, which is what you're doing on every comment.
#1654 to #1627 - Sethorein
Reply -2
(05/04/2012) [-]
but here's the thing. I'm not forcing beliefs. I'm educating.

If you go on here and shout "LOLOLOL GOD IS FEG"... what do you think will happen? People will respond.

Now I am a religious centrist. I comment on religious intolerant comments and atheist intolerant comments alike in an attempt to foster an acceptance of all thought. I'm not saying you're wrong to be atheist, I'm saying that insulting the other side is rude. If you honestly think that's me "forcing my beliefs" onto you... that's kinda sad... I think we can all be civil, right?
#1670 to #1654 - anon
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
That has to be the most ******** response I've ever read.   
   
"I'm not forcing my beliefs; I'm educating."
That has to be the most ******** response I've ever read.

"I'm not forcing my beliefs; I'm educating."

#1678 to #1670 - Sethorein
Reply 0
(05/04/2012) [-]
yes... I'm not telling you that you will burn in hell... I'm explaining the religious perspective...
#1666 to #1654 - Daemonseed
Reply +1
(05/04/2012) [-]
Well, in an open environment, you're free to explain your beliefs, and to respectfully listen to others.
If you agree or not is entirely up to your own beliefs.
I don't care what anyone believes in, just as long as it's a personal belief that isn't forced upon others. Be it a theistic, deistic, gnostic, agnostic, or a form of atheistic, belief.
#1680 to #1666 - Sethorein
Reply +1
(05/04/2012) [-]
As an I. I just disapprove of comments that serve as incitement against someone else's views... I.E. comparing the bible to spiderman -_-"
#1686 to #1680 - Daemonseed
Reply -1
(05/04/2012) [-]
I'm not trying to deviate, but boo-yeah! On a religious post, I got a comment titled 666! The irony?