The Truth. What i truly believe. You don' t need religion to have morals. If you can' t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion. Athei. I'll stay religious anyway.
x
Click to expand

The Truth

The Truth. What i truly believe. You don' t need religion to have morals. If you can' t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion. Athei. I'll stay religious anyway.

What i truly believe

You don' t need
religion
to have morals.
If you can' t
determine right
from wrong then
you lack empathy,
not religion.
Athei
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+364
Views: 18184
Favorited: 47
Submitted: 02/03/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to prettyflyforaderp Subscribe to atheism submit to reddit

Comments(83):

[ 83 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#3 - mayormilkman (02/03/2013) [-]
I'll stay religious anyway.
+2
#65 to #3 - JosefRieper **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #49 - Accidentalninja (02/04/2013) [-]
Some people are Good, Some are Bad.
Some people believe in God, some don't.
Some good people believe in God, some don't.
Some bad people believe in God, some don't.
#73 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
you know, i've seen this several times on this site. And i might as well throw in my two cents. It's easy for one to state this quote as fact, and think that the only thing a man needs to be good is empathy. It's easy to think that, because we live in a civilized, lawful, first world country (at least, i'm thinking most of you reading are), and when you can walk 5 minutes to a store that has all the food you could ever want, running fresh water, medical assistance, hospitals, warmth, and all the luxeries of this modern world we live in, it's easy to look at someone that needs God to do what's right and think "they just lack empathy". But, for a moment, imagine if you didn't have all of these modern miracles that we have now. Imagine if you didn't live in a land with law and police, firefighters, doctors, etc. Because for the majority of humanity, many did not. For a majority of human history, anarchy or corruption ruled. So, lets say the government fell (or you lived in a land without any or you lived in the past during the dark ages, etc.). You didn't have all of these conveniences. Every day was a fight for survival.And lets say, there is a bag of bread laying on the ground. You haven't eaten for days, and there is another man that wants that food. In this situation, it's either kill, or be killed (as it was for most of human history). In this situation, do you let that man take the food and you starve, or do you fight for that food? Many would fight. Many of us would do inhumane things not thought possible in order to survive. I base this on humanity,and what we've done as a species. So, if you had no law, or the conviences of this modern world, could you live by such a meaningless thing as empathy? Could you be a "good man" (what is a goodman after all?) without a greater power. What is moral, and what isn't? is killing that man for that bread wrong if it means you survive? something to think about.
#74 to #73 - chudboy (02/04/2013) [-]
Great point. Ifs and ors though. The quote is on the world we live in today. It's easy to come up with other scenarios where this quote wouldn't be logical.
#77 to #74 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
empires and civilizations have fallen before. Look at Africa, South America, Middle East. These places are terrible places, where what i have said is true. Where every day is a fight for survival. And who's to say that the country you live in couldn't fall? That society where you live couldn't falter? It's happen hundreds of times to hundreds of civilizations. What makes us any different? modern technology? perhaps, but just remember, it could happen. And it has to many. Do you think the Romans thought their empire that was hundreds of years old could fall?
#75 to #73 - chudboy (02/04/2013) [-]
If we lived in an uncivilized world, then yes, empathy would be out the window and we would be fighting for survival. But we're beyond that as a species.
#89 to #73 - anon (03/09/2013) [-]
is that whole thing kind of pointless?
i mean in the bible the moral values are so twisted that it shouldnt be read to kids
killing is fine as long as it was in the name of god and all that so it wouldnt be any different if there was no bible coz its human nature to cooperate with those close to you and not like outsiders
a good person is someone that has done something the vast majority of people would consider beneficial to the society
that is what makes things good
not what a mystical creature 'says'
humans make their own morals nothing else
+5
#70 - pitvipertacos **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #82 - Awesomenessniss (02/04/2013) [-]
And just because someone is religious doesn't mean they are immoral.
#53 - chudboy (02/04/2013) [-]
Then again, I don't mind the use of a religion to teach people, or to give people hope or "answers" to unanswered questions. For them, it's an easy way to understand something, since the world is quite complex and complicated.
#6 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
maybe religion is more than that? maybe religion is something to take away the fear of death and to give answers to questions you dont understand. if you dont harm anyone with your religions, keep going on. you dont have to deal with the physic stuff (and i am a physics major, so stfu) if you dont want to.

The Internet is weird.. Its the only place where atheist seems to be as annoying and dumb as fundamentalist christians
0
#7 to #6 - iron **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#13 to #7 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
to be christian was not my intention
#9 to #6 - ThumbingUp (02/04/2013) [-]
The real world is where you find all the outspoken Christians, because they are the majority and feel they can say whatever the **** they want because most people will agree with them.

The internet is where you find all the outspoken atheists, because we cannot express our opinions in real life without hearing 'you're going to hell,' 'you must not be moral,' 'i'm sorry,' 'why? what else could you possibly believe?' and a number of other awkward and stupid ******* responses.
User avatar #16 to #9 - yunogasaii (02/04/2013) [-]
Obviously you can't say "ur so stupid for beleeving in fake person" to a Christian, just as they can't say "ur so stupid for beleaving in notin". And you are exaggerating about all of them saying stupid **** , as my family and my cousins are all Christian yet they are really nice about it. I have honestly never met a Christian that is obnoxious when it comes to their religion.
#80 to #16 - ThumbingUp (02/04/2013) [-]
Keep in mind that I may not be in the same area as you. I don't talk to "your family and cousins."
I live in a state in the "bible belt" of America, where most people are Christian and most people think it's cool to tell nonbelievers they are wrong and hellbound.

I am not exaggerating, I simply have a different experience as you and was sharing.
#12 to #9 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
so the internet is some kind of a revenge for real life? well.. sorry for your position but i dont think that is the right way.
#81 to #12 - ThumbingUp (02/04/2013) [-]
I never claimed anything like that.
User avatar #66 to #6 - ohgodmysides (02/04/2013) [-]
Relax. This quote is not against religion.
It's just a well known rebuttal to the claim "atheists don't/can't know morals"
#78 - prolem (02/04/2013) [-]
what defines good or bad
User avatar #15 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
I'll be the first to admit I'm not a nice person, as a matter of fact I'm kind of an asshole. That being said, the reason I try to be good and nice and honourable is BECAUSE of my religion and my god.

For example, there was some Russian scientists out there, perhaps you may have heard about them, who managed to keep a severed dog head alive through use of pumps and cycled blood. You can find the video on youtube. You can ALSO find the research and equipment these scientists used on google. Now, me being the curious, scientific sort, would have absolutely no problem finding a stray animal, decapitating it, and trying to further the research...but because animals are sacred to my god, and because he says all animals are to be respected and treated with kindness, I don't do it. Simple as that. I can honestly say religion DOES make me a better person, even if it is just artificially
User avatar #19 to #15 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
That's honestly pretty pathetic.
User avatar #24 to #19 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Oh? So you'd rather me be a honest horrible person than an artificial nice one?
User avatar #25 to #24 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
At least, yeah.
User avatar #27 to #25 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
So by that logic, you'd rather have 6 million jews die in a holocaust than Hitler be a nice person out of reverence for a god?
User avatar #28 to #27 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
Hitler WAS religious.
Didn't change anything.
#41 to #28 - blewws (02/04/2013) [-]
Godwins Law... You're done.
Godwins Law... You're done.
User avatar #31 to #28 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
That's not what I'm asking. YOU said you would rather someone be honestly cruel than sweet and fake. Religion has nothing to do with it at this point

Again, I ask you, you would rather have 6 million die in a holocaust than Hitler be the type who walks old ladies across the street because his god demands it?
User avatar #34 to #31 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
I just think it's pretty pathetic how the only reason that some people are nice is because they're scared of some imaginary place they go after they die.
That is beside the point.
User avatar #38 to #34 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Fine then, lets use Joseph Stalin. Surely you know who that is? Surely you must know he was an Atheist? There, religion is no longer an issue.

I ask again, you would rather 20 million (generally accepted figure sent to death by Stalin's hand. All worked to death, executed, killed in battle, starved, much worse than being gassed in my opinion, but I digress...) die in true evil than even one be saved in false good?
User avatar #40 to #38 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
Honestly, I think that's beside the point.
If someone is as amoral as Hitler or Stalin, people should realize beforehand and prevent them from taking a position of power.
User avatar #43 to #40 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
You're avoiding the question. Now who's pathetic?
User avatar #47 to #43 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
Look, I was mainly referring to average people, who should show their true colors as opposed to pretending to be a good person because they're threatened by something that may not even exist.
Then you brought up Hitler.
User avatar #52 to #47 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Ah, so there is a LIMIT. There's a point where you WOULD prefer false good to true evil, THANK YOU sir, that's the answer I was TRYING to get. Now that we have that out of the way (which was much harder than it had to be), I ask a different question. Same scenario, but with animals, would you rather I be cruel and evil to animals, because I believe it's necessary, or would you rather I be kind and sweet to them because my "imaginary friend" tells me to be?

Eh, Hitler and Stalin were just examples
User avatar #56 to #52 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
You know what, **** you, I think it should be the responsibility of the normal people who DON'T want to torture wild animals or commit genocide to prevent those who do.
I know that's unrealistic, but so is getting everyone to give up religion simultaneously.
User avatar #59 to #56 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very mature of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.
User avatar #64 to #59 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.
User avatar #37 to #15 - blewws (02/04/2013) [-]
So I'm glad you aren't going around cutting off animal's heads, but you see the problem with that, right? You're not a better person because of religion. You're just following some rules. GOOD rules, I might add. Rules like "don't decapitate animals," but your actions aren't coming from kindness or caring. You're just told to behave a certain way. There are plenty of kind Atheists and there are plenty of kind Christians... But you're not really one of them...
User avatar #42 to #37 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
As said, even though it's artificial I would still be classified as a good person (hey, their words, not mine. In truth I agree with YOU, that I'm still quite horrid). I was mearly trying to make an example of how someone can be made "good" through religion, as many Atheists believe that it only makes you do evil things (that being said. If I'm not "good" through being told to behave, than those who killed when they were told to by their god aren't evil, now are they?)
User avatar #48 to #42 - blewws (02/04/2013) [-]
Ok I get that. Maybe that's true. But, I think that most good Christians aren't good because they're Christian. I think it's because they just happen to be good people. Maybe some Atheists are assholes because they don't have a reason to follow those rules.
User avatar #55 to #48 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Indeed, I totally agree sir. We ARE on the same page, I enjoy good and compassionate behaviour just as much as you do, and find (unnecessary) unethical and immoral behaviour reprehensible. I was mearly trying to give an example of how someone can be made kind through religion, rather than evil (which is the generally accepted stereotype)
User avatar #33 to #15 - gottdammit (02/04/2013) [-]
Also, your way of thinking just might make you slightly ******** insane.
User avatar #36 to #33 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
When scientists first split the atom, they had no idea what it was going to do, they didn't even know if it would blow up and take an entire chunk out of the universe, with them along with it....

But they did it anyways.

If you think sacrificing morality and ethics (an entirely human invention) for the sake of progress is "bat **** insane", I would hate to see what type of world would progress if everyone was like you
#54 to #36 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
Provide proof of what you say, by the time of the first atom bombs einstein had already published his paper about e=mc2 over thirty years prior. These scientists were not stupid.
User avatar #58 to #54 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Forgive me sir, but I cannot find a direct paper or link saying "Well, we had no idea what it was going to do" (that said, it's highly unlikely they ever PUT that in paper. That would scare many people. But what IS fact is that there could have been many potential outcomes of splitting an atom, including total destruction). Indeed you are correct, scientists are not stupid, were not then, and tried their very best to know exactly what was going to happen. But at the same time, science will be the first to tell you that nothing is ever 100%
#60 to #58 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
Except the first atom was split in 1917, way before the bomb was built.But I must agree that most scientists will never say they know something with certainty. When they built the bomb they knew the expected yield and what it was likely to do but I digress. Even with knowing what the bomb would do it did raise many serious questions regarding morality and ethics.
User avatar #63 to #60 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
*Now. Now outlawed

Sorry about that
User avatar #62 to #60 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
I never said they put it in a bomb before splitting it. I'm saying that WHEN they split it, while they may have had firm proof that certain possibilities would come out of it, they weren't entirely SURE, and they were still willing to risk it for the sake of progress.

Indeed it did, which is why nuclear weapons are not outlawed (that's scary, isn't it? A weapon so powerful there is a world-wide agreement NOT to use them. That's astonishing)
User avatar #44 to #36 - gottdammit (02/04/2013) [-]
Are you a scientist?
Did that freakish dog-headed construct benefit our race, world or lives in any way?
And even if it did (which I doubt) there is no point in repeating, it's about progressing.

But without going into deep **** , let's just say those thought aren't really normal. It reminds me of a man who said he realized he could kill his entire family while sleeping, but he wouldn't because he loves them. Those kind of thoughts sort of sick, and that man still gave a better reason than "Well God sure wouldn't be happy with that **** ".
User avatar #50 to #44 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
No, sir. Although I'd love to be
It just may, it's one step closer to artificial immortality. If we can manage to keep a dogs head alive through false means, what else can we keep alive, perhaps love enough for it to save ANOTHER life. You misunderstand, kind sir; I'm not repeating, their work was never truly completed because people stopped funding them and boycotted their work based upon moral principles.

Well I don't like most animals, I've been bitten far too many times (and no, it was by no fault of my own. My mother would always adopt disabled, beaten, or broken animals, which were often aggressive because of the mistreatment they got, and everytime I tried to play, or be nice, I would get bitten so hard I would need stitches. I remember quite well). That being said, I'm sure you'd rather me help animals because my god says they are sacred rather than hurt them because I want to see if I can finish some research, right?
User avatar #57 to #50 - gottdammit (02/04/2013) [-]
Not really, sorry.
I mean, It's not like you would actually have an idea what you are doing. You'd probably just be randomly inserting pipes around in a decapitated head. That's not a research, that's playing with a really, really weird tamagochi.

As for that last one, I'd rather hurt one animal in the sake of science (if it would actually benefit the world, of course), than choose not to do it in order to appease a deity which maybe doesn't exist (I would like to emphasize the "maybe").

So let's just agree to disagree, I'm not in a mood for ********** today.
User avatar #61 to #57 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Do you honestly think I would go to such lengths all-willy-nilly without actually looking up every step and procedure I would need to take in order to make it successful? That would just be stupid.

Oh, well good for you chum, I admire your zeal. Indeed I agree, it very well may not exist, but I'm happy with it, and I feel good about myself with it. The same way you feel good about yourself without it.

I don't see why we would need to, we're quite on the same page and I'm trying very hard to be as polite as possible, I DO like you. I apologize for any inconvenience
#18 to #15 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
But, doing that could potentially be a scientific breakthrough.
User avatar #23 to #18 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Indeed, that's exactly why I want to do it
#20 to #15 - temporalguardian (02/04/2013) [-]
aint that pretty.
aint that pretty.
User avatar #26 to #20 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
I don't mean to cause a ruckus, good sir. It's just an example
User avatar #29 to #26 - temporalguardian (02/04/2013) [-]
And a nice example it was!
#84 - masterboll (02/04/2013) [-]
empathy and religion
(pic related)

atheism channel - 0
religion - 1
User avatar #79 - Ninotori (02/04/2013) [-]
I help people, because its right, and because I want to.

By proxy, I get into heaven. Woohoo for me.
#76 - chudboy (02/04/2013) [-]
I've always looked at it like this -
Let say a religious person "I am helping this man, because of my religion, and it grants me a safe place in heaven"
My view "I am helping this man, because I want to."
#71 - Turtleboner (02/04/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#51 - chudboy (02/04/2013) [-]
My point is anyway, religion does not have to teach you how to be a good person. Other people can inspire you even more. I've always thought, than when a religion teaches you morals, the outcome can sometimes be disastrous. Because some people think their doing good, because or for their religion when it really is a bad thing, when someone like myself looks at it. Westboro baptist church for example. They really think their doing good in the world, when their doing the worst possible thing ever. And that's because of their religion, and the way it's "inspired" them to spread a message. It's not logical at all.
#45 - chudboy (02/04/2013) [-]
I see a lot of comments here about if they weren't "inspired" or if they didn't have god, they wouldn't be a nice person. Well from my experience, I consider myself a nice person. Of course I've done some bad things in my life, I'm Human. But I've never had a religion in my life (I'm an atheist). My Parents never seem to care about me or my brother and sister having a religion. I don't even know what my parents believe in. Their quite old fashioned, so I assume my mother believes in a God, and my dad does too, but he's always been interested in nature and the sciences. Point is, I've grown up to be a nice person, and this is because of my parents, and how they are, and not religion. They never forced a religion on me, or say if I'll be bad I'll go to hell etc. I've become the person I am today because of my parents, and not a religion.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (02/04/2013) [-]
Really flooding funnyjunk with atheist...well I can't really use the word humor so lets go with "stuff" huh prettyflyforaderp?
This place needs more anti religious posts, I get so tired of the annoying religious people spamming "praise Jesus" in the comments.
User avatar #32 to #30 - prettyflyforaderp ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
i know...im sorry....what if i upload som funny atheist pics?
User avatar #35 to #32 - Vandeekree (02/04/2013) [-]
Then I would only complain about them being atheist and leave out the unfunny bit.
User avatar #39 to #35 - prettyflyforaderp ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
ok then im just gona upload a funny picture
User avatar #46 to #39 - Vandeekree (02/04/2013) [-]
Guess I can't complain about that....but heaven help you if it's a repeost
#21 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
You don't even lack empathy, as even sociopaths are able to realize the difference between right and wrong in society. (That doesn't mean they'll obey them, but they know what they are)
#10 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
If you are bound by the made up rules of wrong and right you are eaither a slave of religion or moral. Get rid of thease and you can finaly becoume the übermenchen.
User avatar #1 - darthdingo (02/03/2013) [-]
Well, that solves my problems! I'm un-empathetic! Thank you, friend! For helping me see the light. My light, that is.
User avatar #2 to #1 - prettyflyforaderp ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
you definitely over thought that
[ 83 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)