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

hide menu

Vandeekree    

Rank #7864 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Online
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:9/16/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7864
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3703 total,  5496 ,  1793
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (10/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1646
FJ Points:3436

latest user's comments

#1 - Ew. 03/11/2014 on Some day, hell yes -1
#10 - If they don't start making these I'm really going to enjoy the flavor. 03/08/2014 on The flavor we've all been... +8
#246 - Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Sa…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/05/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
#244 - I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necess… 03/05/2014 on Truth hurts 0
#240 - Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#237 - That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone w…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#234 - There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that …  [+] (1 new reply) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
#232 - Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the c…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #233 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
#230 - Yes and no. I'm saying I think that bible is. It looks that wa…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #231 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no is a good answer, but hear me out.

Did you know that the Bible says human trafficking is okay and that slavery is normal. You can even hit your slaves as long as they don't die within the next few days. I wouldn't really take it for the base to morality.

What I think this is only my opinion, don't get too offended. is that religion has nothing to do with morality and if it's the only thing keeping you from murdering people or whatever you're pretty immoral person. Yeah with this the religion is great as it helps society in a way, but doesn't make you more moral.

The pirate example you used is silly. Those people could have been religious just the same. Believing in a higher power doesn't suddenly make you a better person and vice versa.
User avatar #232 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the context. There are two kinds of slavery in the bible that are both called "slavery" in the English translation. The one you are referring to is not the slavery you are thinking of, i. e. American forced slavery such as black people in colonial times. The slavery they are talking about is much closer to indentured servitude. A contract willingly entered, often to avoid poverty. And the guidelines for punishment are there to say "you cannot punish your servant to death" not "it's ok to beat your slave." That law you cited is to protect both servant and owner by keeping the punishment for not working relatively mild but also keep the owner in the legal right is the slave dies the next week after a punishment.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood my example of the pirates. I was illustrating relative morality vs absolute morality.
So perhaps I should put it this way. What keeps you from doing moral wrongs?
If you see an apple, want that apple, and know you ca get away with taking said apple, why don't you?
User avatar #233 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
#229 - Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and un…  [+] (6 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #235 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this shit?

User avatar #237 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#206 - But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious pe… 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
#204 - Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I … 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
#203 - I don't think you know what free will is if you think that con…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
#199 - Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it… 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
#197 - Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way.…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
#194 - But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? …  [+] (4 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

#192 - You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in…  [+] (6 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #195 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
#191 - No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a …  [+] (6 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

#185 - Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?  [+] (11 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

#182 - By you definition, every scientist who has ever said this theo…  [+] (8 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #186 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
You see, I did not mention anything about "contradictions". YOU are the one who brought the idea up.

I simply stated that either all religions are real, thus each must respect the rest, creating all sorts of logical fallacies.... or none of them are.

"And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense"

You see, this is what I completely despise about Christians. These kinds of absolutes.

Fine, you want to talk about giving credit to a certain religion? Well, let's see if there are any reasons for Christianity to be that religions
- chronological priority? Nope, Christianity stems from Judaism, that is at least 3000 years older. Furthermore, there are plenty of proofs that there are religions that are way older than that. Hinduism, for example.
- priority given by how much it is spread? Irrelevant. Once, long ago, the Egyptian or Greek mythologies were the most spread (even under different forms, such as the Roman pantheon) in the world. All of these religions have withered and died, along with the civilizations that stemmed them.
- priority by the morality it preaches? Let's be serious...
User avatar #192 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in them yourself...
There is no reason that all or none has to be true. In fact, the opposite is much more reasonable.

As for your priorities. Most religions claim to have started at the beginning of time. But you seem to be going on the oldest time we have some writing that indicates the religion was around, that's a poor way to go about it. Just because there are no records didn't mean things weren't happening. In fact, records are increadably rare the farther you go back.

Spread is an ok indicator, if nothing else, those religions that are gone are almost certainly not true.

Morality is the best one sense if there is not a logical system of morality in a religion then it falls apart.

The best indicator is to look at all religions together, compare them, and pick the best one based on the comparisons. But there really is no gain in not picking one. "i can't lose if i don't play" never works in practice.
User avatar #195 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
#179 - Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of h…  [+] (13 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

#171 - On the contrary, the religions of the world have much in commo…  [+] (15 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #175 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Except that gods have nothing to do with morality.

The concept of morality was created by societies out of need to better govern themselves. The earliest concept of "religion" was shamanism, where the shaman was the one holding central authority, because he was believed to be the one who is in most contact with nature.

Put it further: most social animals follow a hierarchy and have a for of morality, without showing any religious behavior whatsoever.
User avatar #179 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of how the world works. How morality works. Where did that come from? Why from the internal understand of right and wrong, the understanding that is written on our hearts by God. It fits together rather well.

You see, without God, where does morality come from? No where. It's made up. An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative. And if one person can think murder is wrong and the other think it's right while both being correct, then does morality even exist?
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

#170 - That's mostly opinion. And while opinion is fine. We were talk…  [+] (10 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #178 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Well that's funny, because in my opinion Christianity (or Islam or Judaism for that matter) are extremely arrogant when they preach the idea that THEIR religion is the only true one.

I am simply applying an age-old thought process, backed up by Occam's Razor:
"Either all of it is OK, or none of it is" - meaning either all religions and gods are real, or none of them are.

And Occam's Razor comes in when comparing the 2 situations, one in which you would take for granted each creationist story from every religion on the planet and try to give each and every religions as much credit as the other...
or apply the simplest obvious solution, that religion is solely a man-made concept, created out of fear of the unknown.
User avatar #182 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
By you definition, every scientist who has ever said this theory was correct when others disagreed was being arrogant. Darwin was arrogant to push evolution. Mendel was arrogant to push his ideas of genetics. That makes no sense.

Speaking of making no sense, your point about all or nothing is very flawed. If two things contradict one another then they can't both be true. But how did you come to the conclusion that if two things contradict BOTH must be false?

And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense. This all or nothing stuff is scheiße.
User avatar #186 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
You see, I did not mention anything about "contradictions". YOU are the one who brought the idea up.

I simply stated that either all religions are real, thus each must respect the rest, creating all sorts of logical fallacies.... or none of them are.

"And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense"

You see, this is what I completely despise about Christians. These kinds of absolutes.

Fine, you want to talk about giving credit to a certain religion? Well, let's see if there are any reasons for Christianity to be that religions
- chronological priority? Nope, Christianity stems from Judaism, that is at least 3000 years older. Furthermore, there are plenty of proofs that there are religions that are way older than that. Hinduism, for example.
- priority given by how much it is spread? Irrelevant. Once, long ago, the Egyptian or Greek mythologies were the most spread (even under different forms, such as the Roman pantheon) in the world. All of these religions have withered and died, along with the civilizations that stemmed them.
- priority by the morality it preaches? Let's be serious...
User avatar #192 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in them yourself...
There is no reason that all or none has to be true. In fact, the opposite is much more reasonable.

As for your priorities. Most religions claim to have started at the beginning of time. But you seem to be going on the oldest time we have some writing that indicates the religion was around, that's a poor way to go about it. Just because there are no records didn't mean things weren't happening. In fact, records are increadably rare the farther you go back.

Spread is an ok indicator, if nothing else, those religions that are gone are almost certainly not true.

Morality is the best one sense if there is not a logical system of morality in a religion then it falls apart.

The best indicator is to look at all religions together, compare them, and pick the best one based on the comparisons. But there really is no gain in not picking one. "i can't lose if i don't play" never works in practice.
User avatar #195 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
#30 - Interdasting 03/03/2014 on Do feel what I feel? 0
#20 - What worries me most about this is that a pokeball, the thing …  [+] (2 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Do feel what I feel? 0
User avatar #29 - Seanxone (03/03/2014) [-]
Damaged pokeballs release the pokemon inside with seemingly no damage done to them. There was an episode where Ash's pokeball for snorlax cracked and he needed to use logs to roll it to the pokemon center so that they could fix the ball.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Interdasting
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy (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 - anonymous (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)