x
Click to expand

MosKunas

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Date Signed Up:2/12/2010
Last Login:8/03/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 404 total,  585 ,  181
Comment Thumbs: 101 total,  222 ,  121
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 40 Content: Sammich eater → Level 41 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 49 Comments: Sammich eater → Level 50 Comments: Sammich eater
Subscribers:10
Content Views:19717
Times Content Favorited:18 times
Total Comments Made:150
FJ Points:512
I basically play anything and talk while I do it. Then put it on here. I try to provide the best content and be as original as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LilMoskyOfficial

latest user's comments

#95 - I am an anti-theist, while you are an atheist. Problem solved. 04/11/2013 on Poking a different dragon 0
#93 - Ok, at this point I think we are arguing two different points.…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/11/2013 on Poking a different dragon 0
User avatar #94 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
It was to my understanding that you argued the church should be removed because you personally had grievances with the concept of it (the whole hell bollocks).

I argue contrary to the fact because of my belief in the freedom to choose your belief as well as my view that the church does enough good to balance out the ill.

Some of the ideas within the bible are ridiculous and the hopes are only as false as we perceive them to be. Wether a heaven exists or not does not matter. At the end of the day those who live their lives in an attempt to reach heaven (i.e. living good lives) will ultimately end up with one of two results:

1) They find their nirvana and enjoy eternity laughing at us poor scientific folk as we gently charr in hell.

2) It is contrary to their expectations.

Nothing has changed. The only way to tell wether or not there is a heaven and/or hell is to die and by that point wether you are right or wrong is no longer important because the effects it has on you will not be felt in the world in which we live. If you personally believe, as I do, that there is no afterlife then there is no problem with their 'false' hopes because an alternative set of beliefs still lands them in a situation where they are regrettably dead. It just so happens that they likely lived a better life on the way there than they perhaps would have if they did not feel there was a need for them to be good.

Whilst, yes, it is shallow to do good because of selfish reasons like wanting to be in the afterlife, it does not really matter because whatever the motives, the person is still doing good. They live their lives arguably happier and more contented than others and they do not fear death because in their faith they have comfort and certainty. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as you should not need to believe in a hell, they should not be forced to not.
User avatar #95 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
I am an anti-theist, while you are an atheist. Problem solved.
#90 - If your only reason for supporting religion being around, is i…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/11/2013 on Poking a different dragon 0
User avatar #92 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
I'll narrow this down into 3 basic flaws in your reasoning.

1) Desperate: The outcome of this debate will have an impact upon my life that is so frightfully minuscule that it is beneath register. I continue because I feel you are misguided, because I enjoy a good debate and because I personally think the conversation we are having is very funny.

2) Absurdity: So? Does it matter? I have yet to meet a single christian who believes the bollocks about the garden of eden. Where they have been proved wrong, most well-minded christians have long-since adjusted their views to suit the emergent facts. Their belief is strong enough that other people not believing in it does not phase them. They simply accept the inaccuracies of the already outdated document whilst accepting the truths that it conveys.

3: Does not deserve: Whilst I honestly do not know for sure what you were trying to say there, partly because of the ambiguity of the wording, I assume you are trying to say that it does not deserve to be protected. I genuinely do not know why you would think such a thing as any rational mind can come up with a good reason to justify most things and as such protect them. E.G:

The Nazi Regime: The Nazi Regime brought the world into a post-imperial age by initiating a dissolution of the colony system. As a result of countries fighting Germany's imperialist views, many colonies wished to do the same with their own imperial overlords, leading to countries breaking out on their own. We also have a far greater global awareness of dictatorships, having seen how bad they can get as well as the unity between nations becoming far more prevalent than before. There is more but the point is made.

However rather than justifying the continuation of religion (which I have been doing for some time now) I will flip the board by asking you to justify why it is a detriment to society, as you have yet to provide solid reasoning in that area.
User avatar #91 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
Urgh. It is ironic that arguing with you is like trying to talk to religious obsessives but I'm a stubborn old goat so I press onwards.

At no point did I state it was my only reason. There are numerous other reasons such as the artistry in all forms that it inspires or the spirit of unity it promotes.

I did not show you the video to justify my view. I showed it to completely invalidate your argument, which it does. You argue that the catholic religion deserves no respect and that it creates horribly hypocrite and judgemental people yet that man was an ordained minister who devoted his life to making the world a better place to be.

He is so starkly in contrast with your argument that, were you in the viewpoint of debate rather than argument, you would see the clear flaws in your argument. (I highly suggest you adopt that stance because whilst I am enjoying the debate I fear you will leave it without having absorbed a shred of information, trapped behind your hippocratic beliefs that cruelly judge a large group of people based upon the actions of a few.)

In return to your bringing up Adolf Hitler I will also point out that Adolf Hitler serves as an example that supports your views yet does not harm my stance in the slightest because my point is that the people are the ones at fault, not the religion.

Now, as for that 'morality through ignorance' thing. I agree. It is not the most sensible way to do it. However part of my respect for humanity in general is our right to choose what we want to believe. What is more, there isn't a substitute for it in society. The society in which we live is not nearly as good at cultivating morality as the church is. There is a need in this culture for morality and sadly it is something that is sorely lacking in this age. Removing one of the last bastions of morality would simply worsen society's problems.

As for the divulging the absurdities. I'll need another comment to derail that particular train as this one is rather full.
User avatar #93 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
Ok, at this point I think we are arguing two different points. If you are trying to say that the church gives the opportunity for people to do good things, then of course you're right. But i'm arguing the fact that those morals are based off of ridiculous ideas with false hopes. I do understand what you are saying though. But the church has the ability to create good and bad, as well as atheism, buddhism, jainism does etc. If you agree that religious views are absurd, and we both agree that the church has the ability to create good people, just as anything does. I don't see what we are arguing over.



User avatar #94 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
It was to my understanding that you argued the church should be removed because you personally had grievances with the concept of it (the whole hell bollocks).

I argue contrary to the fact because of my belief in the freedom to choose your belief as well as my view that the church does enough good to balance out the ill.

Some of the ideas within the bible are ridiculous and the hopes are only as false as we perceive them to be. Wether a heaven exists or not does not matter. At the end of the day those who live their lives in an attempt to reach heaven (i.e. living good lives) will ultimately end up with one of two results:

1) They find their nirvana and enjoy eternity laughing at us poor scientific folk as we gently charr in hell.

2) It is contrary to their expectations.

Nothing has changed. The only way to tell wether or not there is a heaven and/or hell is to die and by that point wether you are right or wrong is no longer important because the effects it has on you will not be felt in the world in which we live. If you personally believe, as I do, that there is no afterlife then there is no problem with their 'false' hopes because an alternative set of beliefs still lands them in a situation where they are regrettably dead. It just so happens that they likely lived a better life on the way there than they perhaps would have if they did not feel there was a need for them to be good.

Whilst, yes, it is shallow to do good because of selfish reasons like wanting to be in the afterlife, it does not really matter because whatever the motives, the person is still doing good. They live their lives arguably happier and more contented than others and they do not fear death because in their faith they have comfort and certainty. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as you should not need to believe in a hell, they should not be forced to not.
User avatar #95 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
I am an anti-theist, while you are an atheist. Problem solved.
#86 - And if religion is necessary for its ability to create good pe…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/10/2013 on Poking a different dragon 0
User avatar #87 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Of course I do not believe that. I have at no point argued against the absurdities of religious views. However you again miss the point. You continually argue that religion is not 'necessary' and my point is that it does not matter wether it is necessary or not because it helps create good people.

You are still clearly confused about the teachings of christianity. The term 'unconditional kindness' means nothing more than what it says. Wether someone is going to heaven or hell, you treat them as you would want to be treated were you in their shoes.

What is more, Boom:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xck2ByutMg

This is a video about one of the greatest human beings who ever lived. A man who taught kindness and generosity and values to millions and devoted his life to making peoples lives better, asking nothing in return.

This man is a christian through and through and the perfect example of why religion is not a bad thing. Because not everybody is doing it wrong.
User avatar #90 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
If your only reason for supporting religion being around, is its ability to create good people, then you don't know what you are talking about. I am not confused about any of the teaching of Christianity. And your showing me a video of a man who did good things, and happened to be Christian, as if that's justification for the religions hypocrisy.

You can't give an example like that, as if it justifies your view. Hitler was a catholic, so under that logic your reasoning would deny the church from being necessary. I understand that your supporting the church because it gives the opportunity to be a good person, but basing that production of morality in an area of ignorance and hypocrisy isn't the way to do it. And I assumed you would agree not to divulge into the absurdities of the religion you are desperately trying to protect, while it deserves none in the first place.
User avatar #92 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
I'll narrow this down into 3 basic flaws in your reasoning.

1) Desperate: The outcome of this debate will have an impact upon my life that is so frightfully minuscule that it is beneath register. I continue because I feel you are misguided, because I enjoy a good debate and because I personally think the conversation we are having is very funny.

2) Absurdity: So? Does it matter? I have yet to meet a single christian who believes the bollocks about the garden of eden. Where they have been proved wrong, most well-minded christians have long-since adjusted their views to suit the emergent facts. Their belief is strong enough that other people not believing in it does not phase them. They simply accept the inaccuracies of the already outdated document whilst accepting the truths that it conveys.

3: Does not deserve: Whilst I honestly do not know for sure what you were trying to say there, partly because of the ambiguity of the wording, I assume you are trying to say that it does not deserve to be protected. I genuinely do not know why you would think such a thing as any rational mind can come up with a good reason to justify most things and as such protect them. E.G:

The Nazi Regime: The Nazi Regime brought the world into a post-imperial age by initiating a dissolution of the colony system. As a result of countries fighting Germany's imperialist views, many colonies wished to do the same with their own imperial overlords, leading to countries breaking out on their own. We also have a far greater global awareness of dictatorships, having seen how bad they can get as well as the unity between nations becoming far more prevalent than before. There is more but the point is made.

However rather than justifying the continuation of religion (which I have been doing for some time now) I will flip the board by asking you to justify why it is a detriment to society, as you have yet to provide solid reasoning in that area.
User avatar #91 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
Urgh. It is ironic that arguing with you is like trying to talk to religious obsessives but I'm a stubborn old goat so I press onwards.

At no point did I state it was my only reason. There are numerous other reasons such as the artistry in all forms that it inspires or the spirit of unity it promotes.

I did not show you the video to justify my view. I showed it to completely invalidate your argument, which it does. You argue that the catholic religion deserves no respect and that it creates horribly hypocrite and judgemental people yet that man was an ordained minister who devoted his life to making the world a better place to be.

He is so starkly in contrast with your argument that, were you in the viewpoint of debate rather than argument, you would see the clear flaws in your argument. (I highly suggest you adopt that stance because whilst I am enjoying the debate I fear you will leave it without having absorbed a shred of information, trapped behind your hippocratic beliefs that cruelly judge a large group of people based upon the actions of a few.)

In return to your bringing up Adolf Hitler I will also point out that Adolf Hitler serves as an example that supports your views yet does not harm my stance in the slightest because my point is that the people are the ones at fault, not the religion.

Now, as for that 'morality through ignorance' thing. I agree. It is not the most sensible way to do it. However part of my respect for humanity in general is our right to choose what we want to believe. What is more, there isn't a substitute for it in society. The society in which we live is not nearly as good at cultivating morality as the church is. There is a need in this culture for morality and sadly it is something that is sorely lacking in this age. Removing one of the last bastions of morality would simply worsen society's problems.

As for the divulging the absurdities. I'll need another comment to derail that particular train as this one is rather full.
User avatar #93 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
Ok, at this point I think we are arguing two different points. If you are trying to say that the church gives the opportunity for people to do good things, then of course you're right. But i'm arguing the fact that those morals are based off of ridiculous ideas with false hopes. I do understand what you are saying though. But the church has the ability to create good and bad, as well as atheism, buddhism, jainism does etc. If you agree that religious views are absurd, and we both agree that the church has the ability to create good people, just as anything does. I don't see what we are arguing over.



User avatar #94 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
It was to my understanding that you argued the church should be removed because you personally had grievances with the concept of it (the whole hell bollocks).

I argue contrary to the fact because of my belief in the freedom to choose your belief as well as my view that the church does enough good to balance out the ill.

Some of the ideas within the bible are ridiculous and the hopes are only as false as we perceive them to be. Wether a heaven exists or not does not matter. At the end of the day those who live their lives in an attempt to reach heaven (i.e. living good lives) will ultimately end up with one of two results:

1) They find their nirvana and enjoy eternity laughing at us poor scientific folk as we gently charr in hell.

2) It is contrary to their expectations.

Nothing has changed. The only way to tell wether or not there is a heaven and/or hell is to die and by that point wether you are right or wrong is no longer important because the effects it has on you will not be felt in the world in which we live. If you personally believe, as I do, that there is no afterlife then there is no problem with their 'false' hopes because an alternative set of beliefs still lands them in a situation where they are regrettably dead. It just so happens that they likely lived a better life on the way there than they perhaps would have if they did not feel there was a need for them to be good.

Whilst, yes, it is shallow to do good because of selfish reasons like wanting to be in the afterlife, it does not really matter because whatever the motives, the person is still doing good. They live their lives arguably happier and more contented than others and they do not fear death because in their faith they have comfort and certainty. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as you should not need to believe in a hell, they should not be forced to not.
User avatar #95 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
I am an anti-theist, while you are an atheist. Problem solved.
#84 - I'm talking about the views that represent Christianity. You'r…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/10/2013 on Poking a different dragon 0
User avatar #85 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Religion is not necessary because it is a bi-product of the mind and cultural fears of the unknown. However what is necessary are an awful number of things that religion does vary well. Religion serves as a fantastic means to create a good lifestyle. The Catholic religion promotes kindness and fairness to all as well as generosity and most importantly moral values.

Granted, Religion is not necessary in order to provide these things. I for one hold them to my chest without the need for faith. However that does not mean that we should shun religion in that sense. It has given us astounding works of devotion and beauty and produced miraculous human beings who devote their lives to the betterment of mankind as a whole.

Devotion such as that is possible without religion but religion manages to create it far more easily than is often found without it.

What is more is that the bible is not what you seem to believe it is. It is not a tome of outdated morals and dogmatic views. It is a book of teaching that tells people stories through which they learn how to be better people. Yes, there are aspects of the bible that are out-moded but that is no reason to neglect all that still holds true.

The story of christ is an inspiring tale of a man who preached kindness and fairness to all he met. Unconditional kindness. The clue is in the name. Christianity. They follow the example of christ.

You are confused. Religion does not create bad people. It merely facilitates their ability to be bad people. If you want an example of people being bad people even without the influence of religion then I direct you to yourself. You feel that it is justified to criticise people for their personal beliefs simply because they criticise you for yours. It is textbook hypocrisy.

The world is not yet ready to accept the loss of faith and when faith gives us such overwhelming acts of kindness as it does I can't disagree with them. It still has it's place in this world.
User avatar #86 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
And if religion is necessary for its ability to create good people, well at that point, there are no beliefs involved. And therefore just becomes a charity business. Unless you view it from the view that doing good things will get you into heaven, and your doing those things to be "saved" instead of actual caring of the well beings of those people. And if they aren't Christian then clearly you don't because under that mindset they are going to hell.

I'm saying that religion creates people who do no think rationally, and if they thought the way they do under any context other than religion they would be deemed insane. For example, do you believe "God" sent himself, to save us from himself, by killing himself, to save us for something we didn't do? Because that is the basic premise of the religion. I just want to get your point of view.
User avatar #87 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Of course I do not believe that. I have at no point argued against the absurdities of religious views. However you again miss the point. You continually argue that religion is not 'necessary' and my point is that it does not matter wether it is necessary or not because it helps create good people.

You are still clearly confused about the teachings of christianity. The term 'unconditional kindness' means nothing more than what it says. Wether someone is going to heaven or hell, you treat them as you would want to be treated were you in their shoes.

What is more, Boom:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xck2ByutMg

This is a video about one of the greatest human beings who ever lived. A man who taught kindness and generosity and values to millions and devoted his life to making peoples lives better, asking nothing in return.

This man is a christian through and through and the perfect example of why religion is not a bad thing. Because not everybody is doing it wrong.
User avatar #90 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
If your only reason for supporting religion being around, is its ability to create good people, then you don't know what you are talking about. I am not confused about any of the teaching of Christianity. And your showing me a video of a man who did good things, and happened to be Christian, as if that's justification for the religions hypocrisy.

You can't give an example like that, as if it justifies your view. Hitler was a catholic, so under that logic your reasoning would deny the church from being necessary. I understand that your supporting the church because it gives the opportunity to be a good person, but basing that production of morality in an area of ignorance and hypocrisy isn't the way to do it. And I assumed you would agree not to divulge into the absurdities of the religion you are desperately trying to protect, while it deserves none in the first place.
User avatar #92 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
I'll narrow this down into 3 basic flaws in your reasoning.

1) Desperate: The outcome of this debate will have an impact upon my life that is so frightfully minuscule that it is beneath register. I continue because I feel you are misguided, because I enjoy a good debate and because I personally think the conversation we are having is very funny.

2) Absurdity: So? Does it matter? I have yet to meet a single christian who believes the bollocks about the garden of eden. Where they have been proved wrong, most well-minded christians have long-since adjusted their views to suit the emergent facts. Their belief is strong enough that other people not believing in it does not phase them. They simply accept the inaccuracies of the already outdated document whilst accepting the truths that it conveys.

3: Does not deserve: Whilst I honestly do not know for sure what you were trying to say there, partly because of the ambiguity of the wording, I assume you are trying to say that it does not deserve to be protected. I genuinely do not know why you would think such a thing as any rational mind can come up with a good reason to justify most things and as such protect them. E.G:

The Nazi Regime: The Nazi Regime brought the world into a post-imperial age by initiating a dissolution of the colony system. As a result of countries fighting Germany's imperialist views, many colonies wished to do the same with their own imperial overlords, leading to countries breaking out on their own. We also have a far greater global awareness of dictatorships, having seen how bad they can get as well as the unity between nations becoming far more prevalent than before. There is more but the point is made.

However rather than justifying the continuation of religion (which I have been doing for some time now) I will flip the board by asking you to justify why it is a detriment to society, as you have yet to provide solid reasoning in that area.
User avatar #91 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
Urgh. It is ironic that arguing with you is like trying to talk to religious obsessives but I'm a stubborn old goat so I press onwards.

At no point did I state it was my only reason. There are numerous other reasons such as the artistry in all forms that it inspires or the spirit of unity it promotes.

I did not show you the video to justify my view. I showed it to completely invalidate your argument, which it does. You argue that the catholic religion deserves no respect and that it creates horribly hypocrite and judgemental people yet that man was an ordained minister who devoted his life to making the world a better place to be.

He is so starkly in contrast with your argument that, were you in the viewpoint of debate rather than argument, you would see the clear flaws in your argument. (I highly suggest you adopt that stance because whilst I am enjoying the debate I fear you will leave it without having absorbed a shred of information, trapped behind your hippocratic beliefs that cruelly judge a large group of people based upon the actions of a few.)

In return to your bringing up Adolf Hitler I will also point out that Adolf Hitler serves as an example that supports your views yet does not harm my stance in the slightest because my point is that the people are the ones at fault, not the religion.

Now, as for that 'morality through ignorance' thing. I agree. It is not the most sensible way to do it. However part of my respect for humanity in general is our right to choose what we want to believe. What is more, there isn't a substitute for it in society. The society in which we live is not nearly as good at cultivating morality as the church is. There is a need in this culture for morality and sadly it is something that is sorely lacking in this age. Removing one of the last bastions of morality would simply worsen society's problems.

As for the divulging the absurdities. I'll need another comment to derail that particular train as this one is rather full.
User avatar #93 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
Ok, at this point I think we are arguing two different points. If you are trying to say that the church gives the opportunity for people to do good things, then of course you're right. But i'm arguing the fact that those morals are based off of ridiculous ideas with false hopes. I do understand what you are saying though. But the church has the ability to create good and bad, as well as atheism, buddhism, jainism does etc. If you agree that religious views are absurd, and we both agree that the church has the ability to create good people, just as anything does. I don't see what we are arguing over.



User avatar #94 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
It was to my understanding that you argued the church should be removed because you personally had grievances with the concept of it (the whole hell bollocks).

I argue contrary to the fact because of my belief in the freedom to choose your belief as well as my view that the church does enough good to balance out the ill.

Some of the ideas within the bible are ridiculous and the hopes are only as false as we perceive them to be. Wether a heaven exists or not does not matter. At the end of the day those who live their lives in an attempt to reach heaven (i.e. living good lives) will ultimately end up with one of two results:

1) They find their nirvana and enjoy eternity laughing at us poor scientific folk as we gently charr in hell.

2) It is contrary to their expectations.

Nothing has changed. The only way to tell wether or not there is a heaven and/or hell is to die and by that point wether you are right or wrong is no longer important because the effects it has on you will not be felt in the world in which we live. If you personally believe, as I do, that there is no afterlife then there is no problem with their 'false' hopes because an alternative set of beliefs still lands them in a situation where they are regrettably dead. It just so happens that they likely lived a better life on the way there than they perhaps would have if they did not feel there was a need for them to be good.

Whilst, yes, it is shallow to do good because of selfish reasons like wanting to be in the afterlife, it does not really matter because whatever the motives, the person is still doing good. They live their lives arguably happier and more contented than others and they do not fear death because in their faith they have comfort and certainty. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as you should not need to believe in a hell, they should not be forced to not.
User avatar #95 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
I am an anti-theist, while you are an atheist. Problem solved.
#45 - So you're saying, I should not be offended/worry about if ther…  [+] (11 new replies) 04/10/2013 on Poking a different dragon 0
User avatar #46 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended nor worry about it.

What I am saying is that it simply does not matter. You seem to have a pretty ignorant view of the thing you appear to dislike so much as well. Belief is not science. Like literature, belief is not something that you can just 'know'. Every person will have different beliefs. I have met catholics who believe the entrance to heaven comes purely from good deeds whereas I have met others who believe hell as a concept is not eternal.

The book itself comes from a time of stupider people and the only people who still take everything that is within the book seriously are idiots. Sadly you also fit that description because you are taking the contents of that book seriously whereas it is not the fault of the contents of the book, rather the fault of the idiots who still adhere blindly to them that would seek to persecute you.

You seem to seek to tar them all with the same brush because it is easier than accepting that they are not all the same, ironically a concept that shares parallels with the very fundamentals of your argument, building an arguable level of hypocrisy into what it is you say.

But even then you need not delve anywhere near that far into the problem in order to cease it being a problem. There is no need to worry simply because there is no need to worry. Just as their beliefs differ from each others do your beliefs differ from theirs. Your beliefs are not compromised simply because some guys 'said' something to you. Beliefs are stronger than that.

Words are meaningless unless we give them meaning. The crux of your problem is that just as the people you criticise give meaning to the now irrelevant passages of the bible you give meaning to the ramblings of those who do not deserve meaning. Their words are simply noises that appear in a pattern. A pattern that will not impede your ability to live your life. So just ignore it.
User avatar #84 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
I'm talking about the views that represent Christianity. You're giving me people's own individual interpretations of the religion, who are bending it to what they believe. I'm talking about the values that represent religion. And if you're degrading the bible, what else is there in order to follow Christianity, and establish its morals? There is none, the bible is all there is. And i'm not blaming the book, why would I blame people who had no idea what they were talking about, during a time of literally no science? I'm blaming the people who base their religion off of it, which is what Christianity is.

I understand what you are talking about, saying their own personal beliefs should not worry me. (Even though they can be terrible, and put me in their hell forever, but we won't go into that.) I'm talking about people as a whole. Obviously if you talk about this topic in the context of ones own subjective feelings, then yes, who gives a shit what anyone thinks about anything. But is it honestly productive to believe in such nonsense? And is it conducive for furthering ourselves as a race? I would agree with Richard Dawkins when he says Religion was nothing but a psychological by-product of the mind, and is not necessary.



User avatar #85 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Religion is not necessary because it is a bi-product of the mind and cultural fears of the unknown. However what is necessary are an awful number of things that religion does vary well. Religion serves as a fantastic means to create a good lifestyle. The Catholic religion promotes kindness and fairness to all as well as generosity and most importantly moral values.

Granted, Religion is not necessary in order to provide these things. I for one hold them to my chest without the need for faith. However that does not mean that we should shun religion in that sense. It has given us astounding works of devotion and beauty and produced miraculous human beings who devote their lives to the betterment of mankind as a whole.

Devotion such as that is possible without religion but religion manages to create it far more easily than is often found without it.

What is more is that the bible is not what you seem to believe it is. It is not a tome of outdated morals and dogmatic views. It is a book of teaching that tells people stories through which they learn how to be better people. Yes, there are aspects of the bible that are out-moded but that is no reason to neglect all that still holds true.

The story of christ is an inspiring tale of a man who preached kindness and fairness to all he met. Unconditional kindness. The clue is in the name. Christianity. They follow the example of christ.

You are confused. Religion does not create bad people. It merely facilitates their ability to be bad people. If you want an example of people being bad people even without the influence of religion then I direct you to yourself. You feel that it is justified to criticise people for their personal beliefs simply because they criticise you for yours. It is textbook hypocrisy.

The world is not yet ready to accept the loss of faith and when faith gives us such overwhelming acts of kindness as it does I can't disagree with them. It still has it's place in this world.
User avatar #86 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
And if religion is necessary for its ability to create good people, well at that point, there are no beliefs involved. And therefore just becomes a charity business. Unless you view it from the view that doing good things will get you into heaven, and your doing those things to be "saved" instead of actual caring of the well beings of those people. And if they aren't Christian then clearly you don't because under that mindset they are going to hell.

I'm saying that religion creates people who do no think rationally, and if they thought the way they do under any context other than religion they would be deemed insane. For example, do you believe "God" sent himself, to save us from himself, by killing himself, to save us for something we didn't do? Because that is the basic premise of the religion. I just want to get your point of view.
User avatar #87 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Of course I do not believe that. I have at no point argued against the absurdities of religious views. However you again miss the point. You continually argue that religion is not 'necessary' and my point is that it does not matter wether it is necessary or not because it helps create good people.

You are still clearly confused about the teachings of christianity. The term 'unconditional kindness' means nothing more than what it says. Wether someone is going to heaven or hell, you treat them as you would want to be treated were you in their shoes.

What is more, Boom:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xck2ByutMg

This is a video about one of the greatest human beings who ever lived. A man who taught kindness and generosity and values to millions and devoted his life to making peoples lives better, asking nothing in return.

This man is a christian through and through and the perfect example of why religion is not a bad thing. Because not everybody is doing it wrong.
User avatar #90 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
If your only reason for supporting religion being around, is its ability to create good people, then you don't know what you are talking about. I am not confused about any of the teaching of Christianity. And your showing me a video of a man who did good things, and happened to be Christian, as if that's justification for the religions hypocrisy.

You can't give an example like that, as if it justifies your view. Hitler was a catholic, so under that logic your reasoning would deny the church from being necessary. I understand that your supporting the church because it gives the opportunity to be a good person, but basing that production of morality in an area of ignorance and hypocrisy isn't the way to do it. And I assumed you would agree not to divulge into the absurdities of the religion you are desperately trying to protect, while it deserves none in the first place.
User avatar #92 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
I'll narrow this down into 3 basic flaws in your reasoning.

1) Desperate: The outcome of this debate will have an impact upon my life that is so frightfully minuscule that it is beneath register. I continue because I feel you are misguided, because I enjoy a good debate and because I personally think the conversation we are having is very funny.

2) Absurdity: So? Does it matter? I have yet to meet a single christian who believes the bollocks about the garden of eden. Where they have been proved wrong, most well-minded christians have long-since adjusted their views to suit the emergent facts. Their belief is strong enough that other people not believing in it does not phase them. They simply accept the inaccuracies of the already outdated document whilst accepting the truths that it conveys.

3: Does not deserve: Whilst I honestly do not know for sure what you were trying to say there, partly because of the ambiguity of the wording, I assume you are trying to say that it does not deserve to be protected. I genuinely do not know why you would think such a thing as any rational mind can come up with a good reason to justify most things and as such protect them. E.G:

The Nazi Regime: The Nazi Regime brought the world into a post-imperial age by initiating a dissolution of the colony system. As a result of countries fighting Germany's imperialist views, many colonies wished to do the same with their own imperial overlords, leading to countries breaking out on their own. We also have a far greater global awareness of dictatorships, having seen how bad they can get as well as the unity between nations becoming far more prevalent than before. There is more but the point is made.

However rather than justifying the continuation of religion (which I have been doing for some time now) I will flip the board by asking you to justify why it is a detriment to society, as you have yet to provide solid reasoning in that area.
User avatar #91 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
Urgh. It is ironic that arguing with you is like trying to talk to religious obsessives but I'm a stubborn old goat so I press onwards.

At no point did I state it was my only reason. There are numerous other reasons such as the artistry in all forms that it inspires or the spirit of unity it promotes.

I did not show you the video to justify my view. I showed it to completely invalidate your argument, which it does. You argue that the catholic religion deserves no respect and that it creates horribly hypocrite and judgemental people yet that man was an ordained minister who devoted his life to making the world a better place to be.

He is so starkly in contrast with your argument that, were you in the viewpoint of debate rather than argument, you would see the clear flaws in your argument. (I highly suggest you adopt that stance because whilst I am enjoying the debate I fear you will leave it without having absorbed a shred of information, trapped behind your hippocratic beliefs that cruelly judge a large group of people based upon the actions of a few.)

In return to your bringing up Adolf Hitler I will also point out that Adolf Hitler serves as an example that supports your views yet does not harm my stance in the slightest because my point is that the people are the ones at fault, not the religion.

Now, as for that 'morality through ignorance' thing. I agree. It is not the most sensible way to do it. However part of my respect for humanity in general is our right to choose what we want to believe. What is more, there isn't a substitute for it in society. The society in which we live is not nearly as good at cultivating morality as the church is. There is a need in this culture for morality and sadly it is something that is sorely lacking in this age. Removing one of the last bastions of morality would simply worsen society's problems.

As for the divulging the absurdities. I'll need another comment to derail that particular train as this one is rather full.
User avatar #93 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
Ok, at this point I think we are arguing two different points. If you are trying to say that the church gives the opportunity for people to do good things, then of course you're right. But i'm arguing the fact that those morals are based off of ridiculous ideas with false hopes. I do understand what you are saying though. But the church has the ability to create good and bad, as well as atheism, buddhism, jainism does etc. If you agree that religious views are absurd, and we both agree that the church has the ability to create good people, just as anything does. I don't see what we are arguing over.



User avatar #94 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
It was to my understanding that you argued the church should be removed because you personally had grievances with the concept of it (the whole hell bollocks).

I argue contrary to the fact because of my belief in the freedom to choose your belief as well as my view that the church does enough good to balance out the ill.

Some of the ideas within the bible are ridiculous and the hopes are only as false as we perceive them to be. Wether a heaven exists or not does not matter. At the end of the day those who live their lives in an attempt to reach heaven (i.e. living good lives) will ultimately end up with one of two results:

1) They find their nirvana and enjoy eternity laughing at us poor scientific folk as we gently charr in hell.

2) It is contrary to their expectations.

Nothing has changed. The only way to tell wether or not there is a heaven and/or hell is to die and by that point wether you are right or wrong is no longer important because the effects it has on you will not be felt in the world in which we live. If you personally believe, as I do, that there is no afterlife then there is no problem with their 'false' hopes because an alternative set of beliefs still lands them in a situation where they are regrettably dead. It just so happens that they likely lived a better life on the way there than they perhaps would have if they did not feel there was a need for them to be good.

Whilst, yes, it is shallow to do good because of selfish reasons like wanting to be in the afterlife, it does not really matter because whatever the motives, the person is still doing good. They live their lives arguably happier and more contented than others and they do not fear death because in their faith they have comfort and certainty. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as you should not need to believe in a hell, they should not be forced to not.
User avatar #95 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
I am an anti-theist, while you are an atheist. Problem solved.
#37 - The bible says that if I don't believe in Christianity, I go t…  [+] (13 new replies) 04/09/2013 on Poking a different dragon 0
User avatar #39 - snowshark (04/09/2013) [-]
No. It is not. Not in my eyes at least.

So what if a 2000 year old book says you're naughty. If you don't believe in it then where is the fucking problem? They're not hurting you by believing that and as you are not going to hell why should you worry what other people happen to think?
User avatar #45 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
So you're saying, I should not be offended/worry about if there is a group of people who think I will burn for eternity because I don't believe what they believe. And no matter how good of a person I am, I will go to their hell. If you aren't seeing an issue here I don't know what will convince you, and this belief doesn't just apply to Christianity, it can apply to numerous other religions.
User avatar #46 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended nor worry about it.

What I am saying is that it simply does not matter. You seem to have a pretty ignorant view of the thing you appear to dislike so much as well. Belief is not science. Like literature, belief is not something that you can just 'know'. Every person will have different beliefs. I have met catholics who believe the entrance to heaven comes purely from good deeds whereas I have met others who believe hell as a concept is not eternal.

The book itself comes from a time of stupider people and the only people who still take everything that is within the book seriously are idiots. Sadly you also fit that description because you are taking the contents of that book seriously whereas it is not the fault of the contents of the book, rather the fault of the idiots who still adhere blindly to them that would seek to persecute you.

You seem to seek to tar them all with the same brush because it is easier than accepting that they are not all the same, ironically a concept that shares parallels with the very fundamentals of your argument, building an arguable level of hypocrisy into what it is you say.

But even then you need not delve anywhere near that far into the problem in order to cease it being a problem. There is no need to worry simply because there is no need to worry. Just as their beliefs differ from each others do your beliefs differ from theirs. Your beliefs are not compromised simply because some guys 'said' something to you. Beliefs are stronger than that.

Words are meaningless unless we give them meaning. The crux of your problem is that just as the people you criticise give meaning to the now irrelevant passages of the bible you give meaning to the ramblings of those who do not deserve meaning. Their words are simply noises that appear in a pattern. A pattern that will not impede your ability to live your life. So just ignore it.
User avatar #84 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
I'm talking about the views that represent Christianity. You're giving me people's own individual interpretations of the religion, who are bending it to what they believe. I'm talking about the values that represent religion. And if you're degrading the bible, what else is there in order to follow Christianity, and establish its morals? There is none, the bible is all there is. And i'm not blaming the book, why would I blame people who had no idea what they were talking about, during a time of literally no science? I'm blaming the people who base their religion off of it, which is what Christianity is.

I understand what you are talking about, saying their own personal beliefs should not worry me. (Even though they can be terrible, and put me in their hell forever, but we won't go into that.) I'm talking about people as a whole. Obviously if you talk about this topic in the context of ones own subjective feelings, then yes, who gives a shit what anyone thinks about anything. But is it honestly productive to believe in such nonsense? And is it conducive for furthering ourselves as a race? I would agree with Richard Dawkins when he says Religion was nothing but a psychological by-product of the mind, and is not necessary.



User avatar #85 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Religion is not necessary because it is a bi-product of the mind and cultural fears of the unknown. However what is necessary are an awful number of things that religion does vary well. Religion serves as a fantastic means to create a good lifestyle. The Catholic religion promotes kindness and fairness to all as well as generosity and most importantly moral values.

Granted, Religion is not necessary in order to provide these things. I for one hold them to my chest without the need for faith. However that does not mean that we should shun religion in that sense. It has given us astounding works of devotion and beauty and produced miraculous human beings who devote their lives to the betterment of mankind as a whole.

Devotion such as that is possible without religion but religion manages to create it far more easily than is often found without it.

What is more is that the bible is not what you seem to believe it is. It is not a tome of outdated morals and dogmatic views. It is a book of teaching that tells people stories through which they learn how to be better people. Yes, there are aspects of the bible that are out-moded but that is no reason to neglect all that still holds true.

The story of christ is an inspiring tale of a man who preached kindness and fairness to all he met. Unconditional kindness. The clue is in the name. Christianity. They follow the example of christ.

You are confused. Religion does not create bad people. It merely facilitates their ability to be bad people. If you want an example of people being bad people even without the influence of religion then I direct you to yourself. You feel that it is justified to criticise people for their personal beliefs simply because they criticise you for yours. It is textbook hypocrisy.

The world is not yet ready to accept the loss of faith and when faith gives us such overwhelming acts of kindness as it does I can't disagree with them. It still has it's place in this world.
User avatar #86 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
And if religion is necessary for its ability to create good people, well at that point, there are no beliefs involved. And therefore just becomes a charity business. Unless you view it from the view that doing good things will get you into heaven, and your doing those things to be "saved" instead of actual caring of the well beings of those people. And if they aren't Christian then clearly you don't because under that mindset they are going to hell.

I'm saying that religion creates people who do no think rationally, and if they thought the way they do under any context other than religion they would be deemed insane. For example, do you believe "God" sent himself, to save us from himself, by killing himself, to save us for something we didn't do? Because that is the basic premise of the religion. I just want to get your point of view.
User avatar #87 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Of course I do not believe that. I have at no point argued against the absurdities of religious views. However you again miss the point. You continually argue that religion is not 'necessary' and my point is that it does not matter wether it is necessary or not because it helps create good people.

You are still clearly confused about the teachings of christianity. The term 'unconditional kindness' means nothing more than what it says. Wether someone is going to heaven or hell, you treat them as you would want to be treated were you in their shoes.

What is more, Boom:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xck2ByutMg

This is a video about one of the greatest human beings who ever lived. A man who taught kindness and generosity and values to millions and devoted his life to making peoples lives better, asking nothing in return.

This man is a christian through and through and the perfect example of why religion is not a bad thing. Because not everybody is doing it wrong.
User avatar #90 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
If your only reason for supporting religion being around, is its ability to create good people, then you don't know what you are talking about. I am not confused about any of the teaching of Christianity. And your showing me a video of a man who did good things, and happened to be Christian, as if that's justification for the religions hypocrisy.

You can't give an example like that, as if it justifies your view. Hitler was a catholic, so under that logic your reasoning would deny the church from being necessary. I understand that your supporting the church because it gives the opportunity to be a good person, but basing that production of morality in an area of ignorance and hypocrisy isn't the way to do it. And I assumed you would agree not to divulge into the absurdities of the religion you are desperately trying to protect, while it deserves none in the first place.
User avatar #92 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
I'll narrow this down into 3 basic flaws in your reasoning.

1) Desperate: The outcome of this debate will have an impact upon my life that is so frightfully minuscule that it is beneath register. I continue because I feel you are misguided, because I enjoy a good debate and because I personally think the conversation we are having is very funny.

2) Absurdity: So? Does it matter? I have yet to meet a single christian who believes the bollocks about the garden of eden. Where they have been proved wrong, most well-minded christians have long-since adjusted their views to suit the emergent facts. Their belief is strong enough that other people not believing in it does not phase them. They simply accept the inaccuracies of the already outdated document whilst accepting the truths that it conveys.

3: Does not deserve: Whilst I honestly do not know for sure what you were trying to say there, partly because of the ambiguity of the wording, I assume you are trying to say that it does not deserve to be protected. I genuinely do not know why you would think such a thing as any rational mind can come up with a good reason to justify most things and as such protect them. E.G:

The Nazi Regime: The Nazi Regime brought the world into a post-imperial age by initiating a dissolution of the colony system. As a result of countries fighting Germany's imperialist views, many colonies wished to do the same with their own imperial overlords, leading to countries breaking out on their own. We also have a far greater global awareness of dictatorships, having seen how bad they can get as well as the unity between nations becoming far more prevalent than before. There is more but the point is made.

However rather than justifying the continuation of religion (which I have been doing for some time now) I will flip the board by asking you to justify why it is a detriment to society, as you have yet to provide solid reasoning in that area.
User avatar #91 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
Urgh. It is ironic that arguing with you is like trying to talk to religious obsessives but I'm a stubborn old goat so I press onwards.

At no point did I state it was my only reason. There are numerous other reasons such as the artistry in all forms that it inspires or the spirit of unity it promotes.

I did not show you the video to justify my view. I showed it to completely invalidate your argument, which it does. You argue that the catholic religion deserves no respect and that it creates horribly hypocrite and judgemental people yet that man was an ordained minister who devoted his life to making the world a better place to be.

He is so starkly in contrast with your argument that, were you in the viewpoint of debate rather than argument, you would see the clear flaws in your argument. (I highly suggest you adopt that stance because whilst I am enjoying the debate I fear you will leave it without having absorbed a shred of information, trapped behind your hippocratic beliefs that cruelly judge a large group of people based upon the actions of a few.)

In return to your bringing up Adolf Hitler I will also point out that Adolf Hitler serves as an example that supports your views yet does not harm my stance in the slightest because my point is that the people are the ones at fault, not the religion.

Now, as for that 'morality through ignorance' thing. I agree. It is not the most sensible way to do it. However part of my respect for humanity in general is our right to choose what we want to believe. What is more, there isn't a substitute for it in society. The society in which we live is not nearly as good at cultivating morality as the church is. There is a need in this culture for morality and sadly it is something that is sorely lacking in this age. Removing one of the last bastions of morality would simply worsen society's problems.

As for the divulging the absurdities. I'll need another comment to derail that particular train as this one is rather full.
User avatar #93 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
Ok, at this point I think we are arguing two different points. If you are trying to say that the church gives the opportunity for people to do good things, then of course you're right. But i'm arguing the fact that those morals are based off of ridiculous ideas with false hopes. I do understand what you are saying though. But the church has the ability to create good and bad, as well as atheism, buddhism, jainism does etc. If you agree that religious views are absurd, and we both agree that the church has the ability to create good people, just as anything does. I don't see what we are arguing over.



User avatar #94 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
It was to my understanding that you argued the church should be removed because you personally had grievances with the concept of it (the whole hell bollocks).

I argue contrary to the fact because of my belief in the freedom to choose your belief as well as my view that the church does enough good to balance out the ill.

Some of the ideas within the bible are ridiculous and the hopes are only as false as we perceive them to be. Wether a heaven exists or not does not matter. At the end of the day those who live their lives in an attempt to reach heaven (i.e. living good lives) will ultimately end up with one of two results:

1) They find their nirvana and enjoy eternity laughing at us poor scientific folk as we gently charr in hell.

2) It is contrary to their expectations.

Nothing has changed. The only way to tell wether or not there is a heaven and/or hell is to die and by that point wether you are right or wrong is no longer important because the effects it has on you will not be felt in the world in which we live. If you personally believe, as I do, that there is no afterlife then there is no problem with their 'false' hopes because an alternative set of beliefs still lands them in a situation where they are regrettably dead. It just so happens that they likely lived a better life on the way there than they perhaps would have if they did not feel there was a need for them to be good.

Whilst, yes, it is shallow to do good because of selfish reasons like wanting to be in the afterlife, it does not really matter because whatever the motives, the person is still doing good. They live their lives arguably happier and more contented than others and they do not fear death because in their faith they have comfort and certainty. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as you should not need to believe in a hell, they should not be forced to not.
User avatar #95 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
I am an anti-theist, while you are an atheist. Problem solved.
#16 - Regardless if it's "Christian idiots" making the acc…  [+] (21 new replies) 04/09/2013 on Poking a different dragon 0
User avatar #18 - snowshark (04/09/2013) [-]
Dude... it doesn't fucking matter.

If they're using the book to justify being a dick then they're idiots just as you are an idiot for using to book to justify being a dick to them. Don't fuck with the people who aren't fucking with people. Fuck with the people who 'are' fucking with people.
User avatar #37 - MosKunas (04/09/2013) [-]
The bible says that if I don't believe in Christianity, I go to hell where i will burn for eternity. Is that not enough justification to defend myself from people who believe in said religion, or do you need more?
User avatar #39 - snowshark (04/09/2013) [-]
No. It is not. Not in my eyes at least.

So what if a 2000 year old book says you're naughty. If you don't believe in it then where is the fucking problem? They're not hurting you by believing that and as you are not going to hell why should you worry what other people happen to think?
User avatar #45 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
So you're saying, I should not be offended/worry about if there is a group of people who think I will burn for eternity because I don't believe what they believe. And no matter how good of a person I am, I will go to their hell. If you aren't seeing an issue here I don't know what will convince you, and this belief doesn't just apply to Christianity, it can apply to numerous other religions.
User avatar #46 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended nor worry about it.

What I am saying is that it simply does not matter. You seem to have a pretty ignorant view of the thing you appear to dislike so much as well. Belief is not science. Like literature, belief is not something that you can just 'know'. Every person will have different beliefs. I have met catholics who believe the entrance to heaven comes purely from good deeds whereas I have met others who believe hell as a concept is not eternal.

The book itself comes from a time of stupider people and the only people who still take everything that is within the book seriously are idiots. Sadly you also fit that description because you are taking the contents of that book seriously whereas it is not the fault of the contents of the book, rather the fault of the idiots who still adhere blindly to them that would seek to persecute you.

You seem to seek to tar them all with the same brush because it is easier than accepting that they are not all the same, ironically a concept that shares parallels with the very fundamentals of your argument, building an arguable level of hypocrisy into what it is you say.

But even then you need not delve anywhere near that far into the problem in order to cease it being a problem. There is no need to worry simply because there is no need to worry. Just as their beliefs differ from each others do your beliefs differ from theirs. Your beliefs are not compromised simply because some guys 'said' something to you. Beliefs are stronger than that.

Words are meaningless unless we give them meaning. The crux of your problem is that just as the people you criticise give meaning to the now irrelevant passages of the bible you give meaning to the ramblings of those who do not deserve meaning. Their words are simply noises that appear in a pattern. A pattern that will not impede your ability to live your life. So just ignore it.
User avatar #84 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
I'm talking about the views that represent Christianity. You're giving me people's own individual interpretations of the religion, who are bending it to what they believe. I'm talking about the values that represent religion. And if you're degrading the bible, what else is there in order to follow Christianity, and establish its morals? There is none, the bible is all there is. And i'm not blaming the book, why would I blame people who had no idea what they were talking about, during a time of literally no science? I'm blaming the people who base their religion off of it, which is what Christianity is.

I understand what you are talking about, saying their own personal beliefs should not worry me. (Even though they can be terrible, and put me in their hell forever, but we won't go into that.) I'm talking about people as a whole. Obviously if you talk about this topic in the context of ones own subjective feelings, then yes, who gives a shit what anyone thinks about anything. But is it honestly productive to believe in such nonsense? And is it conducive for furthering ourselves as a race? I would agree with Richard Dawkins when he says Religion was nothing but a psychological by-product of the mind, and is not necessary.



User avatar #85 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Religion is not necessary because it is a bi-product of the mind and cultural fears of the unknown. However what is necessary are an awful number of things that religion does vary well. Religion serves as a fantastic means to create a good lifestyle. The Catholic religion promotes kindness and fairness to all as well as generosity and most importantly moral values.

Granted, Religion is not necessary in order to provide these things. I for one hold them to my chest without the need for faith. However that does not mean that we should shun religion in that sense. It has given us astounding works of devotion and beauty and produced miraculous human beings who devote their lives to the betterment of mankind as a whole.

Devotion such as that is possible without religion but religion manages to create it far more easily than is often found without it.

What is more is that the bible is not what you seem to believe it is. It is not a tome of outdated morals and dogmatic views. It is a book of teaching that tells people stories through which they learn how to be better people. Yes, there are aspects of the bible that are out-moded but that is no reason to neglect all that still holds true.

The story of christ is an inspiring tale of a man who preached kindness and fairness to all he met. Unconditional kindness. The clue is in the name. Christianity. They follow the example of christ.

You are confused. Religion does not create bad people. It merely facilitates their ability to be bad people. If you want an example of people being bad people even without the influence of religion then I direct you to yourself. You feel that it is justified to criticise people for their personal beliefs simply because they criticise you for yours. It is textbook hypocrisy.

The world is not yet ready to accept the loss of faith and when faith gives us such overwhelming acts of kindness as it does I can't disagree with them. It still has it's place in this world.
User avatar #86 - MosKunas (04/10/2013) [-]
And if religion is necessary for its ability to create good people, well at that point, there are no beliefs involved. And therefore just becomes a charity business. Unless you view it from the view that doing good things will get you into heaven, and your doing those things to be "saved" instead of actual caring of the well beings of those people. And if they aren't Christian then clearly you don't because under that mindset they are going to hell.

I'm saying that religion creates people who do no think rationally, and if they thought the way they do under any context other than religion they would be deemed insane. For example, do you believe "God" sent himself, to save us from himself, by killing himself, to save us for something we didn't do? Because that is the basic premise of the religion. I just want to get your point of view.
User avatar #87 - snowshark (04/10/2013) [-]
Of course I do not believe that. I have at no point argued against the absurdities of religious views. However you again miss the point. You continually argue that religion is not 'necessary' and my point is that it does not matter wether it is necessary or not because it helps create good people.

You are still clearly confused about the teachings of christianity. The term 'unconditional kindness' means nothing more than what it says. Wether someone is going to heaven or hell, you treat them as you would want to be treated were you in their shoes.

What is more, Boom:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xck2ByutMg

This is a video about one of the greatest human beings who ever lived. A man who taught kindness and generosity and values to millions and devoted his life to making peoples lives better, asking nothing in return.

This man is a christian through and through and the perfect example of why religion is not a bad thing. Because not everybody is doing it wrong.
User avatar #90 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
If your only reason for supporting religion being around, is its ability to create good people, then you don't know what you are talking about. I am not confused about any of the teaching of Christianity. And your showing me a video of a man who did good things, and happened to be Christian, as if that's justification for the religions hypocrisy.

You can't give an example like that, as if it justifies your view. Hitler was a catholic, so under that logic your reasoning would deny the church from being necessary. I understand that your supporting the church because it gives the opportunity to be a good person, but basing that production of morality in an area of ignorance and hypocrisy isn't the way to do it. And I assumed you would agree not to divulge into the absurdities of the religion you are desperately trying to protect, while it deserves none in the first place.
User avatar #92 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
I'll narrow this down into 3 basic flaws in your reasoning.

1) Desperate: The outcome of this debate will have an impact upon my life that is so frightfully minuscule that it is beneath register. I continue because I feel you are misguided, because I enjoy a good debate and because I personally think the conversation we are having is very funny.

2) Absurdity: So? Does it matter? I have yet to meet a single christian who believes the bollocks about the garden of eden. Where they have been proved wrong, most well-minded christians have long-since adjusted their views to suit the emergent facts. Their belief is strong enough that other people not believing in it does not phase them. They simply accept the inaccuracies of the already outdated document whilst accepting the truths that it conveys.

3: Does not deserve: Whilst I honestly do not know for sure what you were trying to say there, partly because of the ambiguity of the wording, I assume you are trying to say that it does not deserve to be protected. I genuinely do not know why you would think such a thing as any rational mind can come up with a good reason to justify most things and as such protect them. E.G:

The Nazi Regime: The Nazi Regime brought the world into a post-imperial age by initiating a dissolution of the colony system. As a result of countries fighting Germany's imperialist views, many colonies wished to do the same with their own imperial overlords, leading to countries breaking out on their own. We also have a far greater global awareness of dictatorships, having seen how bad they can get as well as the unity between nations becoming far more prevalent than before. There is more but the point is made.

However rather than justifying the continuation of religion (which I have been doing for some time now) I will flip the board by asking you to justify why it is a detriment to society, as you have yet to provide solid reasoning in that area.
User avatar #91 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
Urgh. It is ironic that arguing with you is like trying to talk to religious obsessives but I'm a stubborn old goat so I press onwards.

At no point did I state it was my only reason. There are numerous other reasons such as the artistry in all forms that it inspires or the spirit of unity it promotes.

I did not show you the video to justify my view. I showed it to completely invalidate your argument, which it does. You argue that the catholic religion deserves no respect and that it creates horribly hypocrite and judgemental people yet that man was an ordained minister who devoted his life to making the world a better place to be.

He is so starkly in contrast with your argument that, were you in the viewpoint of debate rather than argument, you would see the clear flaws in your argument. (I highly suggest you adopt that stance because whilst I am enjoying the debate I fear you will leave it without having absorbed a shred of information, trapped behind your hippocratic beliefs that cruelly judge a large group of people based upon the actions of a few.)

In return to your bringing up Adolf Hitler I will also point out that Adolf Hitler serves as an example that supports your views yet does not harm my stance in the slightest because my point is that the people are the ones at fault, not the religion.

Now, as for that 'morality through ignorance' thing. I agree. It is not the most sensible way to do it. However part of my respect for humanity in general is our right to choose what we want to believe. What is more, there isn't a substitute for it in society. The society in which we live is not nearly as good at cultivating morality as the church is. There is a need in this culture for morality and sadly it is something that is sorely lacking in this age. Removing one of the last bastions of morality would simply worsen society's problems.

As for the divulging the absurdities. I'll need another comment to derail that particular train as this one is rather full.
User avatar #93 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
Ok, at this point I think we are arguing two different points. If you are trying to say that the church gives the opportunity for people to do good things, then of course you're right. But i'm arguing the fact that those morals are based off of ridiculous ideas with false hopes. I do understand what you are saying though. But the church has the ability to create good and bad, as well as atheism, buddhism, jainism does etc. If you agree that religious views are absurd, and we both agree that the church has the ability to create good people, just as anything does. I don't see what we are arguing over.



User avatar #94 - snowshark (04/11/2013) [-]
It was to my understanding that you argued the church should be removed because you personally had grievances with the concept of it (the whole hell bollocks).

I argue contrary to the fact because of my belief in the freedom to choose your belief as well as my view that the church does enough good to balance out the ill.

Some of the ideas within the bible are ridiculous and the hopes are only as false as we perceive them to be. Wether a heaven exists or not does not matter. At the end of the day those who live their lives in an attempt to reach heaven (i.e. living good lives) will ultimately end up with one of two results:

1) They find their nirvana and enjoy eternity laughing at us poor scientific folk as we gently charr in hell.

2) It is contrary to their expectations.

Nothing has changed. The only way to tell wether or not there is a heaven and/or hell is to die and by that point wether you are right or wrong is no longer important because the effects it has on you will not be felt in the world in which we live. If you personally believe, as I do, that there is no afterlife then there is no problem with their 'false' hopes because an alternative set of beliefs still lands them in a situation where they are regrettably dead. It just so happens that they likely lived a better life on the way there than they perhaps would have if they did not feel there was a need for them to be good.

Whilst, yes, it is shallow to do good because of selfish reasons like wanting to be in the afterlife, it does not really matter because whatever the motives, the person is still doing good. They live their lives arguably happier and more contented than others and they do not fear death because in their faith they have comfort and certainty. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as you should not need to believe in a hell, they should not be forced to not.
User avatar #95 - MosKunas (04/11/2013) [-]
I am an anti-theist, while you are an atheist. Problem solved.
#23 - teranin (04/09/2013) [-]
If you don't rock the boat from time to time people will become complacent. Complacent people are sheep. Sheep get eaten by the wolves. I'd rather everyone be a human, because a human can self-determinate, and wolves have a much harder time preying on humans.

That being said man, this post is targeted at people who actually believe, in their heart, that my lot for not believing in their god is eternal torment and suffering. If that's not something you believe, then this isn't directed at you, so why take offense? After all, I actually rather like you and appreciate your views and candor, so if you don't think my lot is to burn eternally then there is no reason why we need dislike one another.
User avatar #29 - snowshark (04/09/2013) [-]
Oh I'm not offended. I'm bored. I'm bored of the endless stirring of the hornets nests of idiocy that exist on either side of the blood-bowl of theological debate. As I've stated below, I've no grudge against people being funny and having their giggles but that does not change the fact that I am just bored with religious nuts and atheist arseholes making the same noise over and over again.

Granted, complacency is rarely a completely beneficial state, but the people who are willing to accept the views of others already do not need the boat-rocking, meaning that the only people who are affected by it are the angry, stupid ones.

It is essentially little more than trolling militant bronies or CoD/Halo fanboys or Mac/PC users.

Thanks for the compliment, mind. I also do not dislike you. (Seriously, a disagreeable post on funnyjunk really isn't enough in my books to merit dislike. Kill a puppy with a hammer, then we'll talk.)
#33 - teranin (04/09/2013) [-]
Is it bad that I wished I had an animated gif of someone killing a puppy with a hammer to respond to that with? Maybe I really am a huge troll.
User avatar #34 - snowshark (04/09/2013) [-]
Not a bad thing. It's the internet. We're here to exist outside of previously-established cultural boundaries and revel in the freedom of the self-generated and ever-evolving culture of memes and virals that make the internet their home.

On the net, wanting something perverse is par for the course. We do not judge because we are on the internet and frankly if we were to start judging people then we just wouldn't get anywhere, would we?

Long story short, google that shit, son!
#35 - teranin (04/09/2013) [-]
... I really don't want to google someone killing a puppy. Even I have my limits. There aren't many... but they're there.
User avatar #36 - snowshark (04/09/2013) [-]
Can't argue with that. Puppies do tend to be far cuter when the stuff that's meant to be inside them is still inside them.
#164 - That's my point in the metaphor. Then the people who don't gol… 04/07/2013 on Hypocrisy 0
#90 - And you point is?  [+] (2 new replies) 04/07/2013 on Hypocrisy -1
#106 - miaandvinny (04/07/2013) [-]
Golf, in that case, would be a religion
User avatar #164 - MosKunas (04/07/2013) [-]
That's my point in the metaphor. Then the people who don't golf are atheists. But grouping all of the "non-golfers" into one group is way different then all the Buddhists, etc.
#32 - Well then that's an anti-theist not an atheist. 04/06/2013 on Hypocrisy 0
#21 - Atheism isn't a religion. That's like grouping everyone who do…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/06/2013 on Hypocrisy -6
#69 - miaandvinny (04/07/2013) [-]
Actually, it would be like grouping a bunch of people who don't play any sport together.
#103 - miaandvinny (04/07/2013) [-]
Golf, in that case, would be a religion.
User avatar #90 - MosKunas (04/07/2013) [-]
And you point is?
#106 - miaandvinny (04/07/2013) [-]
Golf, in that case, would be a religion
User avatar #164 - MosKunas (04/07/2013) [-]
That's my point in the metaphor. Then the people who don't golf are atheists. But grouping all of the "non-golfers" into one group is way different then all the Buddhists, etc.
#28 - anonexplains (04/06/2013) [-]
Yea, but not many atheists see atheism as non belief in god rather than belief in the absence of god.
User avatar #117 - srapture (04/07/2013) [-]
That's just splitting hairs really. From the wellspring of knowledge I have at my fingertips through Googling the definition of everything before using it in a discussion, I must agree with MosKunas in saying that Atheism is not a religion. "Religion: Noun - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.".
User avatar #32 - MosKunas (04/06/2013) [-]
Well then that's an anti-theist not an atheist.
#94 - Christianity at its roots is irrational, and celebrates human … 03/21/2013 on Richard Dawkins 0
#93 - I don't understand how a person can be so oblivious to the wor… 03/21/2013 on Richard Dawkins 0
#72 - I always get so sad when i'm reminded that he is gone, I watch… 03/15/2013 on Feels 0
#5 - I've been an anti-theist for a pretty decent amount of time ac… 03/14/2013 on 1, 2, 3... SHI... 0
#2 - ......Regardless if you can count or not, those numbers are bo… 03/14/2013 on 1, 2, 3... SHI... +1
#1 - I just hate the hypocrisy that is at the core of Christian val…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/14/2013 on 1, 2, 3... SHI... +1
User avatar #4 - freddyhollensen (03/14/2013) [-]
.
User avatar #2 - MosKunas (03/14/2013) [-]
......Regardless if you can count or not, those numbers are borderline un-fathomable. but in order to understand this you need to think in the context of billions of billions of billions. Now any Christian will tell you life is a unique thing, and we are created in the image of God, yet if you think in the context of the numbers I stated previously you may think differently. Lets create an example, (just to sum up the numbers from before it is scientifically accepted that there are around a billion, billion (a billion of a billion)) planets to exist in our universe. If there is a one in one billion chance in life on a planet, life would still have arisen on a billion planets-of which Earth is obviously one. This conclusion is scientific theory, and obviously very surprising so I will state it again. If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one, the stupefyingly improbable event would still occur on a billion planets in the context of the universe.
If we consider those mind-blowing statistics, along with the fact that there has been thousands of "Gods" on our own planet alone, that have been proven to be false, it will just be a matter of time before the Gods of today's religions assume their position in the history books with the likes of Zeus, Ra, Vishnu, etc. For one to hear these odds and moral hypocrisies of religion (along with obvious flaws), and not even question their faith, is not thinking on a logical level, but thinking with the likes of pre-scientic era beings who thought they would receive rain if they prayed hard enough.
Then again, with all of this said, there is no logic you can present to someone who doesn't value it, to make them think logically. At that point the conversation is over.





#42 - Well at that point, the said person isn't going to feel better… 03/14/2013 on Why I'm an atheist 0
#53 - The reason they were being radical was because of their religi… 03/14/2013 on Well, it's true 0
#15 - Christopher Hitchens also had a quote similar to that, if you … 03/14/2013 on Oh, Ricky 0
#13 - Christianity isn't the most predominant religion in the world.....  [+] (1 new reply) 03/14/2013 on heheh 0
User avatar #14 - cullenatorguy (03/14/2013) [-]
lol, old content. Islam is, of course, the most predominant religion in the world. I think this chart refers to the United States, though.
#3 - You couldn't be more wrong, honestly. They are all separate, b… 03/14/2013 on Why atheists laugh at... 0
#332 - It's not as if you can just choose a religion, and believe in … 03/12/2013 on What are your chances of... 0
#21 - You say these things as if the religion itself created it? All… 03/12/2013 on Imagine no religion -1
[ 142 Total ]

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 850

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)