x
Click to expand

Vandeekree

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:7/07/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2460
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 5175 total,  7221 ,  2046
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 76% (76/100)
Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:1
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:2022
FJ Points:4502

latest user's comments

#191 - Yes, it is. The difference between a close a friend and a clos… 04/20/2014 on Shrimp +1
#26 - *sex  [+] (3 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Shrimp -1
User avatar #28 - WtfStrawberries (04/20/2014) [-]
Because getting married is completely about sex, amirite?
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (04/20/2014) [-]
Yes, it is. The difference between a close a friend and a close friend who you want to have sex with is that you marry the one you want to have sex with. The love is the same, the difference is that you should marry the one you are sexually attracted to.
#47 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
yes because you need to consumate the marriage? retard.



personally i hate children in a gay rally, church, resturaunt, park and so on. children shouldnt have parents because children take on their parents opinions!
#24 - One is teaching moral ideals, the other is the support of sexu…  [+] (15 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Shrimp 0
User avatar #32 - whatareyouon (04/20/2014) [-]
this is bait if I've ever seen it
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (04/20/2014) [-]
Sorry, no bait here. I don't want thumbs down, this is simply the truth. The gay movement isn't about rights, it's about trying to change what s viewed as accepted ways to have sex.
User avatar #197 - whatareyouon (04/20/2014) [-]
Fine if you want a discussion i'll give you one.
"the gay movement isn't about rights" holy shit bro, I'm sorry but really? yes it is about that. that is exactly what is's about. Gay's want to have the right to be married. They want the right to see their loved one in the hospital if they're dying or hurt.

I also wasn't aware you were gay yourself, well you must be right? Because if you were not then speaking on the behave of gays would be a great ignorance since you can't know what we feel.

Also why the fuck shouldn't gay sex be viewed as acceptable? can you give me even one reason that's not quoting a 2000 year old book written by farmers?
Gays are not lesser people and so they should have the same rights as everyone else.
User avatar #210 - Vandeekree (04/20/2014) [-]
The gay rights movement is not about right. Gay people(in America) have the same rights everyone else already. They can marry any woman(assuming they are male) they like just like everyone else and no one is allowed to marry the same sex or animals or anything perverse like that. It's done for children mainly. But we are also free here, able to have consensual sex with anyone you like. No, what the gay rights movements wants is to redefine marriage's definition to include something it doesn't already. They don't want to be allowed to do something, they already can, what they want is to make others accept what they are doing is right, when it simply isn't.

And what are you talking about I can't understand? People, even if they label themselves as gay, are still people just like me. Everyone lusts, everyone has feelings they shouldn't, it's completely normal. Gayness is not a disease or some disorder, it's a simple lustful want, trust me when I say I do very much understand how you feel. But wanting to do something doesn't automatically make it ok to do.

As for why it shouldn't be seen as normal. It's the same reason most fetishes shouldn't be broadcast. It is an adult subject that is best left for adults to decide how they feel about. And yes, different moral philosophies would argue if it were right or wrong. But if we simply look at natural law,(leaving morals out) how our bodies are made, then it's really not something that's healthy from a reproductive standpoint.

But then again, if you want to leave religion out then you can justify that there's nothing wrong with doing anything.

Although I don't think I was wanting a discussion, just clearing up that I was in no way attempting to "troll."
User avatar #215 - whatareyouon (04/20/2014) [-]
www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson

Gay people in america DO NOT have the same rights stop saying they do you are wrong.

being gay is as much as a fetish as being straight.
In natural law(leaving morals out) we have more than enough people to reproduce you could say gays are more natural for controlling this. It is healthier for our planet and last i checked that's what's keeping us alive.

also there's this thing called Social Contract Theory.
Social Contract Theory : an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.
religion did not create this, this was around long long before. this is what kept us from killing each other. this makes it wrong to kill people and do anything you want. religion is not the limiter it does not stop people from killing people it likes to pretend that it is the limiter, but it is not.
User avatar #230 - Vandeekree (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah, everything on that list makes sense. Otherwise every time someone died you could file for work leave if you claimed you knew them well enough and strangers could enter your hospital room is they said they knew you, it makes sense.

Why do married couples get those benefits? Because they are special? No, it's because they are at risk of a specific condition that unavoidably eats a massive chunk of the couple's income and time called having a child. For the sake of those children, the parents get certain protections and breaks. And those are available to ANYONE. Black, white, old, young, even the Dutch.

And no, gay sex is not the most effective nor a necessary way of keeping the population in check. That argument for keeping it makes little sense. We should in no way support people learning to become gay so they won't have babies.

And no, the Social Contract does not make it wrong to do any of that, it makes it beneficial fr the group. And you're leaving out how it's still beneficial for the group to pillage weaker groups. Thus, by your definition, making that morally right too.

So you are correct that religion did not create the Social Contract. It created something else that predated the Social Contract, and that is the idea of right and wrong not based on personal gain. So you seem to have it rather backwards on what is pretending to be a limiter, because those who follow religion never murder unless they break away from those religious deals of not murdering.
User avatar #236 - whatareyouon (04/20/2014) [-]
There are straight couples who are sterile should they not get benefits other married couples do? of course they still get the benefits, because they can adopt and so can gays so that argument is invalid.

First off a lot of Christians think you can learn to be gay. let me tell you that is total bullshit you are born gay it is not something you pick up, learn or grow out of. Also i never said it was the most effective way to stop over population. I said it was a better way than being straight which happens to be true.

Yes, actually by definition social contract does indeed mean it's wrong to murder someone else in your group. I don't know how i can make this more clear to you.

Also it's always beneficial for stronger groups to pillage weaker ones i thought that was fairly obvious. That is literally every war including every religious one. That is called Darwinism and i was assuming you knew about it.

I'm really not sure what you were talking about in that last sentence at all. I'll assume you think social contract came after religion which is wrong. Social contract started before humans knew how to hunt or cook food. Social contract started before the human species existed. It's a primal concept that some animals have developed through evolution it is older than any mere theology. religion is a pretender to social contract. It merely copied social contract adding in fear to keep people in line.

Religious people murder like any others. serial killers, knights, warriors, solders, and yes even kings and popes. Religion does not stop them from murdering not at all. It does not magically prevent them from killing. It simple gives them petty justification for their actions.
User avatar #238 - Vandeekree (04/20/2014) [-]
Gay people really shouldn't adopt, it's simply not natural. And there's no reason for a sterile couple not to be married, there's a chance they might someday be medically cured of that condition.

And no, you are not bored gay. We are humans, we have control over ourselves. A lot of gay people like to label themselves as instinct driven animals with no control over the actions they take, but that's simply not true. Like other fetishes, you do learn it and can reject it if you so choose. That's the nice thing about being human, we have self control and we understand that repeatedly doing something can allow you to change how you feel about it.

Yes, murder someone "in your group" and all you have to do it make it ok is to simply remove them from what you consider "your group."

And yes, that's what I said, I just assumed you thought that murder was wrong, sorry.

And seeing how religion started with the first human capable of understand right and wrong, yes, it came first. Now if you consider social contract to be something animals do, that's different. I don't believe that sense, to my understanding, social contract means you choose to do it and animals can't really choose, social animals simply do it on instinct.

And no, you see, in Christianity at least, it says "no killing" and that means no killing, ever. Can you pervert that? Yes, but that's deviating from the actual ideals of the religion and something you would have to ask forgiveness for. I would say that religion has stopped more murders than anything else. It's a big part of what stops me from doing lesser things, I don't even think about murder but I might if i didn't have religion.
User avatar #239 - whatareyouon (04/20/2014) [-]
"simple not natural" is your opinion not a reason for gays not to adapt. there is no fact that you can bring up that says gay married should be banned. therefor the point you made is opinion based and inevitably wrong.

You are not gay so you have no said on whether or not gays are born gay or not. I am and I'm telling you that people are born gay. you were talking outside the scope of your knowledge therefore the point you made is wrong

religion was not a primal thing it is very man made what you're mistaking for "the first human capable of understanding right and wrong" there is a name for that it is called Social Contract this is not a debatable topic that is a fact.

yes animals have instinct, but they make choices just like we do. If you don't think animals make choices when what the fuck do you think we do? or do you not think humans are animals too?> because that ideology is dead wrong. we are 99% alike to monkeys and you can trace our linage back to algae.
Everyone who has taken a simple biology class knows that.

religion really hasn't done much good. all things considered.
> Christianity prevented scientific advancements for nearly 1000 years
> The crusades and any religious war.
> general and average ignorance corresponds with religious belief. EX: the average person who beliefs in religion is not as smart as the average person who does not. (sorry to say this but it's true. this is not meant to be 'Ad Hominem' just purely factual.) you can read the many studies Professor Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Ulster University has conducted on the subject.
> Christianity is trying to force it's way into education.
> The middle east factions will kill you proving how loving and peaceful they are.
these among many other examples.

This is probably going to be my last post since i doubt by your resonance that you are actually reading and considering my points.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (04/20/2014) [-]
I never said it should be banned. It's just a misuse of a word. Marriage means a man and woman together and I don't want that changed. Now if gay people want to create a new gay marriage with all the same legal benefits, that's fine. But it's not the same thing as marriage.

And no, I'm not gay, I'm straight, but I wasn't born straight. It's a choice, I could choose to have gay sex and I could even learn to enjoy it just like I could fetishize anything else. I'm human, I like sex, and like all humans, I can train myself to get into anything sexually. But just because I can, doesn't mean it's ok to do. But if you want to get nit picky, you don't know the scope of my knowledge, so you talking about the scope of my knowledge is outside the scope of your knowledge.

I'm not sure you know what a fact is if you are calling that fact. And religion is not man made I'm afraid. It was given by God.

No, humans are considerably smarter than animals. We reason and more importantly, we understand. No animal has ever been able to comprehend that others have minds of their own. I wish I could recall that one test they give to animals where they have one person hide a ball under a basket and then have another person walk in and ask the animal(a primal in most cases) where the new arrival thinks the ball is. They always say that the new person would think the ball is under the basket even though they don't know that. Not until humans are 5 do they understand the problem with that but no animal has ever passed that test.

So yes, we are close to primate, but not exactly. There is a difference and it's in our brains.

And this list is exceptionally ignorant. I invite you to study up on those things you listed because they are simply wrong.
Churches were what preserved knowledge in the "dark ages" and were who founded most of the notable European colleges of today.
I'm running out of room to educate you on the others sadly, but do look them up.
#25 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
One is making kids leave about a magical fairy, the other is about love.
User avatar #26 - Vandeekree (04/20/2014) [-]
*sex
User avatar #28 - WtfStrawberries (04/20/2014) [-]
Because getting married is completely about sex, amirite?
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (04/20/2014) [-]
Yes, it is. The difference between a close a friend and a close friend who you want to have sex with is that you marry the one you want to have sex with. The love is the same, the difference is that you should marry the one you are sexually attracted to.
#47 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
yes because you need to consumate the marriage? retard.



personally i hate children in a gay rally, church, resturaunt, park and so on. children shouldnt have parents because children take on their parents opinions!
#35 - Comment deleted 04/20/2014 on I'm ok with this +3
#158 - Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for th… 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
#156 - I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up …  [+] (2 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#154 - Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.  [+] (4 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#152 - To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#150 - Because unvaccinated children aren't the only place your child…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #151 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vaccinated, my child is protected through herd immunity.
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#148 - Well if your child is at risk then they're the ones who should…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/17/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #149 - Endofzeeworld (04/17/2014) [-]
Why should my child be punished because you refuse to vaccinate? I didn't put my child in the position they're in, but you put your child in the position they're in.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Because unvaccinated children aren't the only place your child could catch something from in that vulnerable state.
User avatar #151 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vaccinated, my child is protected through herd immunity.
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#66 - Why do you care? Your child is vaccinated.  [+] (12 new replies) 04/17/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #73 - Endofzeeworld (04/17/2014) [-]
Because if your child brings measles to school and my child is immuno-compromised, my child dies.
User avatar #148 - Vandeekree (04/17/2014) [-]
Well if your child is at risk then they're the ones who shouldn't be sent to school.
User avatar #149 - Endofzeeworld (04/17/2014) [-]
Why should my child be punished because you refuse to vaccinate? I didn't put my child in the position they're in, but you put your child in the position they're in.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Because unvaccinated children aren't the only place your child could catch something from in that vulnerable state.
User avatar #151 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vaccinated, my child is protected through herd immunity.
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#58 - You get used to it. So long as you don't panic, you don't have… 04/17/2014 on No Escape From That 0
#204 - But there is something stopping a religious person, and that i…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want 0
User avatar #356 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/16/2014) [-]
That's no different from the fear of consequences from any other source. It's not particular to Christians.

Where does it say that in the Bible? I don't recall a single verse that says that you need to repent in order to "truly" believe.

And where do you get those morals, the Bible? Something written by men, that has been improperly translated multiple times, and wasn't compiled until almost four hundred years after the birth of Christ? That doesn't sound like a very absolute source. Besides,"God dunnit" is not conducive to a rational discussion. If you're going to insist on "nuh uh, I'm right because god!" then this discussion will go nowhere.

No, morality is not conducive to religion or the "right" religion (I'm guessing that means your religion, correct?) since organized religion did not exist until about 6000 years ago, and morality existed long before that and in the absence of it. Claiming that people magically know these specific morals simply to bolster your own point is irrational. Now, if you wanted to claim that God made humans evolve with altruistic traits and a basic moral compass then you might have a point, but to say that they magically know them without ever having read them is ridiculous.

No, it doesn't mean that. Humanity needs a stable, cohesive society to function, which means that strangers can't be cruel to each other any more than brothers can or else that society falls apart. Basic morality is not unique to humans; almost all intelligent social animals exhibit it, including apes and dolphins. Cooperation is required for a stable society; even these corporations you rail on have a high degree of cooperation within themselves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality#Animal_sociality
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/embor.2010.19/full
books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PccMuO2pcOcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=morality+in+dolphins&ots=6ezquG-enQ&sig=72TZ-eh0c5tTsOcQFU8spE6NzsU#v=onepage&q=morality%20in%20dolphins&f=false
#355 - nigeltheoutlaw has deleted their comment.
#160 - Yes, and killing someone IS wrong, always. Some claim it's ok … 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want 0
#114 - What do you mean if they have the urge they won't be stopped b…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want -1
#127 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Absolute morality states that one rule holds true for any circumstances, and that just isn't true. If killing is bad, is it bad to kill in defense, is what I mean. If absolute morality can bend the rules like this in your opinion then I concede this.

Obviously if fear of God kept people from sinning then we would have no sinners, as the majority of people in the world are of Abrahamic religions, yet where are we today. I speak not of principle, but of actuality.

Morality is not a religious concept. Children have no problem doing what they want to get what they want, unless they are taught otherwise. Bats teach consequences with reward and punishment, chimpanzees understand morality fairly well enough. It depends on what you define morality as, but saying only religious people know what true morality is is just plain ignorant.

Atheists don't need a fear of consequences, just as you don't. Both have consequences for actions, one is only in the next as well as in this one.
User avatar #160 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
Yes, and killing someone IS wrong, always. Some claim it's ok in self defense but it's not. Look at the turn the other cheeks verse. If someone wants your cloak give them your shirt too. You should have no reason for another person to give you a reason to defend yourself. In that same way, you should love everyone. Not love some more than others, love everyone equally. So if someone attacks someone else, you should love both of them enough to do all you can to save the one who is begin attacked but also try not to hurt and NEVER kill the one who is attacking. You can use words and actions but to kill the attacker is selfish on your part. There is no bending in absolute morality.

And yes, fear of God does prevent sin, but not everyone has fear of God. And not everyone who is religious has enough fear of God, myself included, I sin. It's a choice, but when people choose to follow it, it works.

I never said only religious people know. I said that all morality that exists comes from religion. Even that which people who aren't religious have. They mimic the morality of religions.

And yes, you and I do need fear of consequences in order to avoid doing something we want to do. If I offered you something you wanted and convinced you that there would be no consequences here or in the next life, you would take it. Fear of punishment is the only thing that stops people from doing wrong.

But for atheists, they don't see it as a guarantee. If you rob a bank you MIGHT get caught, or you might get rich. Either way, it's only wrong if you get caught. But for a Christian, God sees you no matter what.

#62 - But that's not what repenting is. Repenting is saying that you…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want -1
#70 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Well then, if they had the urge, then they are not going to be stopped by some of their beliefs. They're going to sever ties if they really wanted to.

Also, absolute morality is just unworkable, as you would need to apply that to situations where it would not work. Either kinds are fairly poor if your general morality is poor, but relative makes more sense with good reasoning.

Morality is a learned concept, and not unique to humans, therefore not unique to religion.
User avatar #114 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
What do you mean if they have the urge they won't be stopped by their beliefs? That's the only thing stopping them. Fear of God. The only thing stopping an atheist is fear of punishment from others. That's the difference.

And absolute morality is the only thing that's workable. It means that there is a set wrong and right, where relative morality means two people can do the same thing, but depending on their beliefs, it can be wrong for one and right for the other. That makes no sense.
Please give me some of the examples you were talking about where absolute morality wouldn't work.

And yes, morality is a learned concept, but it is unique to humans. And it is unique to religion. You see, when God created this world, he set in place morality. Just because an atheist can understand morality, doesn't mean he isn't getting all his ideas of right and wrong from religion because there's simply no where else for them to come from.

No atheist can answer the question "Why is this wrong?" when pointing to an action. Because without God there is no reason something is right or wrong.
#127 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Absolute morality states that one rule holds true for any circumstances, and that just isn't true. If killing is bad, is it bad to kill in defense, is what I mean. If absolute morality can bend the rules like this in your opinion then I concede this.

Obviously if fear of God kept people from sinning then we would have no sinners, as the majority of people in the world are of Abrahamic religions, yet where are we today. I speak not of principle, but of actuality.

Morality is not a religious concept. Children have no problem doing what they want to get what they want, unless they are taught otherwise. Bats teach consequences with reward and punishment, chimpanzees understand morality fairly well enough. It depends on what you define morality as, but saying only religious people know what true morality is is just plain ignorant.

Atheists don't need a fear of consequences, just as you don't. Both have consequences for actions, one is only in the next as well as in this one.
User avatar #160 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
Yes, and killing someone IS wrong, always. Some claim it's ok in self defense but it's not. Look at the turn the other cheeks verse. If someone wants your cloak give them your shirt too. You should have no reason for another person to give you a reason to defend yourself. In that same way, you should love everyone. Not love some more than others, love everyone equally. So if someone attacks someone else, you should love both of them enough to do all you can to save the one who is begin attacked but also try not to hurt and NEVER kill the one who is attacking. You can use words and actions but to kill the attacker is selfish on your part. There is no bending in absolute morality.

And yes, fear of God does prevent sin, but not everyone has fear of God. And not everyone who is religious has enough fear of God, myself included, I sin. It's a choice, but when people choose to follow it, it works.

I never said only religious people know. I said that all morality that exists comes from religion. Even that which people who aren't religious have. They mimic the morality of religions.

And yes, you and I do need fear of consequences in order to avoid doing something we want to do. If I offered you something you wanted and convinced you that there would be no consequences here or in the next life, you would take it. Fear of punishment is the only thing that stops people from doing wrong.

But for atheists, they don't see it as a guarantee. If you rob a bank you MIGHT get caught, or you might get rich. Either way, it's only wrong if you get caught. But for a Christian, God sees you no matter what.

#21 - I think the only real point you could draw from this is that y…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want 0
User avatar #170 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/16/2014) [-]
There's nothing to stop a religious person from raping either. If they were hit to the urge to rape, then they would.

You talk of repenting, but the only requirement for heaven is belief. Repenting is not necessary.

All morality is relative. Claiming an absolute simply because it agrees with your views is ludicrous and does much to tear down your credibility.

Morality is not unique to religion. It has existed long before religion, exists in the absence of religion, and exists in children too young to be influenced by religion.

deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/66763/10.1177_016502547800100403.pdf?sequence=2
psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1981-32767-001
www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/Warneken&Tomasello_2009b.pdf

Yes, I can. It is wrong because it is not in your best interest. All morality comes down to the fact that if you are free to rape, kill, and steal, then so is everyone else, and you aren't exempt from that. Human need stable societies to thrive, which is why we have evolved altruistic tendencies: those that have them succeed while those that don't are shunned and are not successful.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
But there is something stopping a religious person, and that is the fear of God, the fear of consequences. And unlike an atheist, those consequences can understood be be guaranteed.

And I agree about your comment on belief. But when you believe something then you act on that belief. If you believe that Russia is going to invade then you start stockpiling food stuffs. If you believe in God then you start repenting. So it is necessary or else you simply don't believe.

And no, morality, when it comes from an all knowing being. There is no way for a human to make a law that isn't relative simply because we have no way of seeing all possible practices and implications of that law. It takes all knowing and all seeing power to do such a thing, that is how God can give us absolute morality.

And morality is unique to religion. Specifically the right religion. Because it was created at the beginning just as religion was created at the beginning. And it does exist in the absence of the knowledge of the right religion, but that is still the same morality of that religion. It is written in our hearts and in the very structure that makes up how a human has to live given out physical bodies.

And if you are going to base morality in "my best interest" then that means it's right to hurt other if it is in your best interests. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right. And who's to say that you need cooperation for there to be a stable society. Selfishness doesn't require you to take all till it dries up, you can be like the corporations who take only as much as they can without breaking the back of their "cash cows." It's wrong but it creates a very stable society.
User avatar #356 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/16/2014) [-]
That's no different from the fear of consequences from any other source. It's not particular to Christians.

Where does it say that in the Bible? I don't recall a single verse that says that you need to repent in order to "truly" believe.

And where do you get those morals, the Bible? Something written by men, that has been improperly translated multiple times, and wasn't compiled until almost four hundred years after the birth of Christ? That doesn't sound like a very absolute source. Besides,"God dunnit" is not conducive to a rational discussion. If you're going to insist on "nuh uh, I'm right because god!" then this discussion will go nowhere.

No, morality is not conducive to religion or the "right" religion (I'm guessing that means your religion, correct?) since organized religion did not exist until about 6000 years ago, and morality existed long before that and in the absence of it. Claiming that people magically know these specific morals simply to bolster your own point is irrational. Now, if you wanted to claim that God made humans evolve with altruistic traits and a basic moral compass then you might have a point, but to say that they magically know them without ever having read them is ridiculous.

No, it doesn't mean that. Humanity needs a stable, cohesive society to function, which means that strangers can't be cruel to each other any more than brothers can or else that society falls apart. Basic morality is not unique to humans; almost all intelligent social animals exhibit it, including apes and dolphins. Cooperation is required for a stable society; even these corporations you rail on have a high degree of cooperation within themselves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality#Animal_sociality
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/embor.2010.19/full
books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PccMuO2pcOcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=morality+in+dolphins&ots=6ezquG-enQ&sig=72TZ-eh0c5tTsOcQFU8spE6NzsU#v=onepage&q=morality%20in%20dolphins&f=false
#355 - nigeltheoutlaw has deleted their comment.
#27 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
There's nothing stopping a religious person from doing it either, when they can just do it and repent. Morals are not something exclusive to religion, and if they're the only thing stopping him from raping, then so be it if they're broken. But don't pretend that ones religion will automatically stop them any more than their character or sense.
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
But that's not what repenting is. Repenting is saying that you are sorry for what you did AND that you will try not to do it again. But if you are knowingly using it as a "loophole" like that then you aren't actually repenting at all.

And while many argue morality isn't exclusive to religion, absolute morality is. Without some kind of religion you can only have relative morality, which I find hard to even see as true morality.

And yes, religion will automatically stop you from sinning. The only way to sin, while following religion, is to ignore what you know to be right and break from your religion in that moment. The reason common sense can't do it alone is because you can't be sure what is truly good in some situations. That's why people can see the same situation and disagree on what is the right thing to do.
#70 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Well then, if they had the urge, then they are not going to be stopped by some of their beliefs. They're going to sever ties if they really wanted to.

Also, absolute morality is just unworkable, as you would need to apply that to situations where it would not work. Either kinds are fairly poor if your general morality is poor, but relative makes more sense with good reasoning.

Morality is a learned concept, and not unique to humans, therefore not unique to religion.
User avatar #114 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
What do you mean if they have the urge they won't be stopped by their beliefs? That's the only thing stopping them. Fear of God. The only thing stopping an atheist is fear of punishment from others. That's the difference.

And absolute morality is the only thing that's workable. It means that there is a set wrong and right, where relative morality means two people can do the same thing, but depending on their beliefs, it can be wrong for one and right for the other. That makes no sense.
Please give me some of the examples you were talking about where absolute morality wouldn't work.

And yes, morality is a learned concept, but it is unique to humans. And it is unique to religion. You see, when God created this world, he set in place morality. Just because an atheist can understand morality, doesn't mean he isn't getting all his ideas of right and wrong from religion because there's simply no where else for them to come from.

No atheist can answer the question "Why is this wrong?" when pointing to an action. Because without God there is no reason something is right or wrong.
#127 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Absolute morality states that one rule holds true for any circumstances, and that just isn't true. If killing is bad, is it bad to kill in defense, is what I mean. If absolute morality can bend the rules like this in your opinion then I concede this.

Obviously if fear of God kept people from sinning then we would have no sinners, as the majority of people in the world are of Abrahamic religions, yet where are we today. I speak not of principle, but of actuality.

Morality is not a religious concept. Children have no problem doing what they want to get what they want, unless they are taught otherwise. Bats teach consequences with reward and punishment, chimpanzees understand morality fairly well enough. It depends on what you define morality as, but saying only religious people know what true morality is is just plain ignorant.

Atheists don't need a fear of consequences, just as you don't. Both have consequences for actions, one is only in the next as well as in this one.
User avatar #160 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
Yes, and killing someone IS wrong, always. Some claim it's ok in self defense but it's not. Look at the turn the other cheeks verse. If someone wants your cloak give them your shirt too. You should have no reason for another person to give you a reason to defend yourself. In that same way, you should love everyone. Not love some more than others, love everyone equally. So if someone attacks someone else, you should love both of them enough to do all you can to save the one who is begin attacked but also try not to hurt and NEVER kill the one who is attacking. You can use words and actions but to kill the attacker is selfish on your part. There is no bending in absolute morality.

And yes, fear of God does prevent sin, but not everyone has fear of God. And not everyone who is religious has enough fear of God, myself included, I sin. It's a choice, but when people choose to follow it, it works.

I never said only religious people know. I said that all morality that exists comes from religion. Even that which people who aren't religious have. They mimic the morality of religions.

And yes, you and I do need fear of consequences in order to avoid doing something we want to do. If I offered you something you wanted and convinced you that there would be no consequences here or in the next life, you would take it. Fear of punishment is the only thing that stops people from doing wrong.

But for atheists, they don't see it as a guarantee. If you rob a bank you MIGHT get caught, or you might get rich. Either way, it's only wrong if you get caught. But for a Christian, God sees you no matter what.

#44 - I was going to insult his intelligence, but that's just what h… 04/14/2014 on I feel you bro 0
#164 - I think you should carefully decide what you think is right an… 04/12/2014 on An actual unpopular opinion +1
#3 - Hm...a possible correlation to religion here? One tr…  [+] (6 new replies) 03/28/2014 on moth trouble +3
User avatar #16 - frutus (03/28/2014) [-]
So you're saying that the moon is the correct religion? You fucking heathen. Ever heard of a little thing called THE SUN?
GOD you people are obnoxious, thinking that a piece of rock can do shit.
User avatar #17 - TheHutchie (03/28/2014) [-]
Actually it's a well-accepted theory that without the moon and its tidal effects on planet Earth, many aspects of nature would simply collapse, arguably leading to the potential ruin of life on Earth.

I hope this fits into your definition of "shit a piece of rock can do".
User avatar #18 - frutus (03/28/2014) [-]
sorry
User avatar #19 - TheHutchie (03/28/2014) [-]
Damn right motherfucker, you don't want to piss off the moon.
#20 - pineapplepeople (03/28/2014) [-]
The moon is not my sun, but I will (p)raise it!
#4 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
ah so i DO still see you post! FGT
#26 - Fail as a parent? No no, it was simply God's will, I did nothi… 03/27/2014 on HoMoPhObE 0
#9 - Brilliant. Convince enough people to follow their dreams and t… 03/25/2014 on What if money were no object? +135
#24 - No, I'm pretty sure that when a woman touches herself thinking… 03/25/2014 on SelfRape 0
#41 - Well that back story doesn't feel like a stretch. Is this conf…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/25/2014 on FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELS 0
User avatar #47 - Hydrocircuit (03/25/2014) [-]
It is stated in the series that he is japanese and actually doesnt know english.

His death is never gone into that much, but it seems he's suppsoed to be a play on the japanese branch of the "Rockabilly" subculture
User avatar #42 - sneperker (03/25/2014) [-]
fanfic
#35 - "It's so ******* frightening. Sleep paralysis is … 03/18/2014 on Dreams +9

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#27 - fedexman (05/09/2015) [-]
We need more people like you on FJ
We need more people like you on FJ
User avatar #28 to #27 - Vandeekree ONLINE (05/09/2015) [-]
Thanks, might I ask what brought this comment about?
User avatar #29 to #28 - fedexman (05/09/2015) [-]
Just appreciate what you say, too many ignorant people these days,keep it up man.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy ONLINE (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree ONLINE (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree ONLINE (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - anon (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree ONLINE (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)