Rank #10543 on CommentsLevel 249 Comments: Doinitrite
OfflineSend mail to crilleballe Block crilleballe Invite crilleballe to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||4/10/2011|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#14233|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#2182|
|Content Thumbs:||40 total, 112 , 72|
|Comment Thumbs:||5270 total, 6432 , 1162|
|Content Level Progress:|| 74.57% (44/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 88% (88/100) |
Level 249 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 250 Comments: Contaminated Win
|Total Comments Made:||1665|
latest user's comments
|#68 - Adding to the below comment. As the content stated, there is n… [+] (2 new replies)||10/03/2013 on It's not okay.||0|
#131 - funnymanohword (10/03/2013) [-]
Not to be a dick, but I don't get how that analogy makes any sense in regard to faith and whatnot. I don't think people who have faith in life after death choose so because it's easier. I consider myself an Agnostic Theist, so I don't know what will happen after I die, but I don't think people who believe in an afterlife are just "settling" for something. Everyone goes through a period of questioning their beliefs and if they come out believing in an afterlife or whatnot, so be it.
#185 - crilleballe (10/03/2013) [-]
While you put a sound statement, you're assuming that most religious people choose to believe in life after death as their religious text describes it, without indoctrination on the slightest level. I was indoctrinated into the protestant christian belief of life after death and i live in scandinavia, one of the least religious regions of the earth.
My point is that children of religious people often, although not always, are taught a religious view on death, and thus they don't need to choose a view on their own.
Therefore it is comfortable as well as easy to not change your beliefs, no matter what you would change them to, although the least comforting one is probably the atheistic belief.
On a side note, do you think any currently religious people would believe in the same theory that they believe in now, if they never read their respective religious texts?
I believe that they would think like me, although i admit i cannot base that on a solid foundation.
The only neutral theory certaintly seems to be the one that just lets us die and rot.
|#67 - Atheists don't have faith. I'm sorry to use such words, but fo…||10/03/2013 on It's not okay.||0|
|#64 - The burden of proof is not on the one that doesn't believe god… [+] (4 new replies)||10/03/2013 on It's not okay.||0|
#348 - xdeathspawnx (10/03/2013) [-]
The burden is actually on those who want to disprove god. If you want to tell someone that what they have faith in is wrong, than it is your burden to disprove them, not theirs to justify their beliefs to you. If you don't want to believe in what they do, then fine, but you have no right to call them wrong unless you have some proof to back you up. If there is no proof to deny something, than there is a possibility, no matter how small, that it is true.
As for the teapot analogy, I would not be able to disprove you, so I wouldn't have a problem with you believing it or basing you actions off what it says, as long as you don't break the law or disrespect others.
#352 - crilleballe (10/03/2013) [-]
First off: I never said that having faith is wrong. However, faith is in no way an argument for your gods factual existence. You say it is not their burden to justify their beliefs.
True, if they did not envoke laws based upon their beliefs, were state funded or got tax reductions, allowed people to share healthcare through marriage or printed their belief on currency. Don't friggin base laws regarding everyone on the beliefs of only someone, especially when it is statistically proven to reduce intelligence and quality of living conditions. If all christians, or any other religious group, did not affect my daily life, i couldn't care less about what they believe. You need to reason to me, why a country should make laws based off the rules of your book, written millenias ago, when it is clearly not beneficial.
Second off: You clearly didn't understand the teapot analogy as it is created exactly to say that even though there is an ever so slim chance that something could be true, such as a teapot orbiting mars or a god controlling everything, it does not give a reason to believe that. If i were clear enough to specify enough details of enough complexity, i could argue that anything is possible.
#362 - xdeathspawnx (10/03/2013) [-]
you are correct that Christianity as a whole does get a lot of unfair treatment. I definitely do not agree with the government making laws because of what any religion has to say. I think that you are completely justified in being upset that religion is forced into your life even though you don't
I would not call myself very religious at all. The closest thing I could use to describe myself would probably be an agnostic. However, I do believe that people should be able to believe anything they choose In my opinion forcing religion off of people is just as bad as forcing religion on people.
I don't disagree with many of your opinions, I just think that saying the burden of proof is on those who are religious is wrong. If people want to believe something based on no proof, than there is no burden on them, just like their is no burden on Atheist to justify why they don't follow any religion. (obviously this changes the second someone wants to change laws or say that their beliefs are facts and should be treated as such)
#261 - malhaloc (10/03/2013) [-]
I do. I'm not saying not to not believe. Thats your choice. Just don't call me an idiot for not having proof when you're doing the same thing. That's all I meant. I have friends from other ways of life. I've known muslims, atheists, hindus, and even a couple witches, pagans, and wiccans. I dont agree with what they do, especially the last 3 but I was never an ass about it. And they never were either. But when someone goes full retard and starts insulting people for believing in something they dont and with no more proof than the other person to back their claim, it just seems hypocritical whether you believe in no god, one god, or a thousand.
|#61 - I know that one of the reasons is that many christians think t… [+] (12 new replies)||10/03/2013 on It's not okay.||0|
#187 - crilleballe (10/03/2013) [-]
Yes, that is something that BOTH sides do, and i would not consider anyone who does that credible or worth listening to and certaintly not worth reflecting upon.
I have actually met many atheists, that make mass generalizations, and i completely agree that it is a problem. I have however never met any atheist that condemns religion.
|#17 - I happen to disagree||10/02/2013 on Life...||+3|
|#5 - Almost all gods ever described feature qualities that make the…||09/26/2013 on Atheism vs Theism||0|
|#45 - SCP-076 is "able" and it is killable, just really ha…||09/24/2013 on What the fuck is this!?||0|
|#6 - I'm sorry [+] (1 new reply)||09/23/2013 on Gut JUB||0|
|#4 - Picture [+] (3 new replies)||09/23/2013 on Gut JUB||+2|
|#60 - No, really, that's pretty ******* nice. In that case you … [+] (2 new replies)||09/23/2013 on sweet, sweet hypocrisy||0|