religion, bitches.. . Religion is like having a classroom where the students have show up every day but there' s teacher. There are a bunch m peeks around and M
x
Click to expand

religion, bitches.

Religion is like having a classroom
where the students have show up every day
but there' s teacher.
There are a bunch m peeks around and M ens
is even sure which one is the text book.
Some students insist on one book;
others argue just as hard for another.
Then suddenly, on the last day, the teacher appears L . _
and says he' s been watching everybody rra' dlm
the whole time.
He praises the mes who chose the right text emit
and sends them off to have elegies and milk.
miimii
And then he sets everyine else en fire.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+2065
Views: 73406
Favorited: 555
Submitted: 02/27/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to redorbit submit to reddit

Comments(463):

[ 463 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #6 - angreif (02/27/2013) [-]
no, that's just university
#206 - gibroner (02/28/2013) [-]
If Talos doesn't exist then why do amulets of Talos make shouts regenerate faster?
Atheists: 0
Christians: 0
Thalmor: 0
Talos: 1
User avatar #14 - mynameisnotmike (02/27/2013) [-]
Meanwhile...

The atheists are sleeping in class

The anarchists are smoking pot in the bathroom

and the agnostic is sitting in the back of the room fapping through his sweatpants
0
#257 to #14 - niggernazi has deleted their comment [-]
#455 to #14 - anon (02/28/2013) [-]
how is atheists sleeping in class? That's just retarded
#192 to #14 - uberender (02/28/2013) [-]
Sorry. I just have a grudge with that word and how it's used.
User avatar #211 to #192 - elitejerkz (02/28/2013) [-]
Agnostic = You believe in the possibility of a god.
Therefore it is one option.
#255 to #211 - coolcalx (02/28/2013) [-]
actually, by itself, neither agnosticism nor atheism are beliefs. they have to be paired together.
User avatar #349 to #255 - thatevanguy (02/28/2013) [-]
Agnostic Atheist seems pretty damn accurate for my opinions anyway.
#354 to #349 - coolcalx (02/28/2013) [-]
I'm an Agnostic Atheist as well. I don't like the idea of "strong" atheism (gnostic atheism). it seems incredibly childish and illogical to say that you know a higher deity doesn't exist. I prefer to acknowledge that I have no idea, and try to live in a way that would please God (or whomever may be in charge of the universe).    
   
>inb4 one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven on good deeds alone   
I know the verse. I've read the entire Bible.   
if God doesn't let me into heaven even though I tried my best to live how he taught us to live, then I wouldn't want to worship him anyway.   
   
>inb4 the purpose of being a Christian isn't to be nice to others, but to have a direct relationship with God.   
I tried that before. he never acknowledged my existence.   
   
>inb4 coolstorybro.jpg   
you're damn right it is.
I'm an Agnostic Atheist as well. I don't like the idea of "strong" atheism (gnostic atheism). it seems incredibly childish and illogical to say that you know a higher deity doesn't exist. I prefer to acknowledge that I have no idea, and try to live in a way that would please God (or whomever may be in charge of the universe).

>inb4 one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven on good deeds alone
I know the verse. I've read the entire Bible.
if God doesn't let me into heaven even though I tried my best to live how he taught us to live, then I wouldn't want to worship him anyway.

>inb4 the purpose of being a Christian isn't to be nice to others, but to have a direct relationship with God.
I tried that before. he never acknowledged my existence.

>inb4 coolstorybro.jpg
you're damn right it is.
#505 to #354 - ainise (02/28/2013) [-]
This is pretty much Agnostic Theist.

I'm an Agnostic Atheist, though I argue as if I was a gnostic atheist... I don't do anything to serve any god. I put Gods in the same realm as Unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sure I can't prove they haven't existed, and never will exist, but I'm damn sure not going to believe a Unicorn Salesmen.
#506 to #505 - coolcalx (02/28/2013) [-]
"This is pretty much Agnostic Theist."

no, because I don't think a higher being exists. I follow the philosophies of people like Jesus Christ and Siddhartha Gautama simply because they're good ideas, and I think society would be better if other people did the same
#408 to #255 - xmasterchefx (02/28/2013) [-]
So what would it be considered if you don't really think there is a god/gods but you wont say there isn't because there isn't proof of a gods existence?
User avatar #504 to #408 - coolcalx (02/28/2013) [-]
agnostic atheist, if I'm understanding you correctly.
User avatar #440 to #211 - uberender (02/28/2013) [-]
The point is that the actual word "agnostic" doesn't refer to belief at all. Only knowledge. When discussing religion, one can be a theist or an atheist, not a mix of the two. And if you say "I don't care" or "I don't know," then yes, you're agnostic, but you're also an atheist because it doesn't make sense to say that you don't know/care if there's a god or not, but you still believe in one.
#320 to #14 - anon (02/28/2013) [-]
...and the deists read all the books, and formulate an opinion to do what they feel is right whether or not some books claim it to be sin.
#227 to #14 - musichead (02/28/2013) [-]
Wow, I never knew that anarchy was a religion.
User avatar #487 to #227 - mynameisnotmike (02/28/2013) [-]
It's not but it made the joke better.
User avatar #342 to #14 - xsap (02/28/2013) [-]
i'm pretty sure atheists wouldn't just be sleeping.. they would be yell at everyone that there is no such thing as a teacher and they all should put the books down and go home
User avatar #365 to #342 - graphically (02/28/2013) [-]
Well, no one even saw the teacher at the beginning of class. There's just never been a teacher. Who even wrote these books? Other students? Why should we sit in a classroom with no teacher and a bunch of ****** books written by kids when we could be going outside enjoying life?
User avatar #72 to #14 - zembrache (02/27/2013) [-]
Are atheists allowed to switch with the agnostics?
User avatar #281 to #14 - remsaman (02/28/2013) [-]
The athiest stop showing up to class after the first week of the teacher not showing up.
#4 - magnusos (02/27/2013) [-]
how i imagine the classroom would have looked like while the teacher was gone
how i imagine the classroom would have looked like while the teacher was gone
User avatar #30 to #4 - deadmuerto (02/27/2013) [-]
uh oh party hard thread
#279 - iamtheblackgoat (02/28/2013) [-]
< When will you atheists learn
User avatar #316 to #279 - gongthehawkeye (02/28/2013) [-]
Shrek is love
Shrek is life
#209 - thytruth (02/28/2013) [-]
That's just about sums it up.
What an individual can do at this point is read all the books when he's in class and try to find the answers he's looking for.
User avatar #474 to #209 - rockamekishiko (02/28/2013) [-]
i don't think god would send people from other religion to hell just for not being in a specific one. also wouldn't looking for answers to stuff based on what you have make it science?
#225 to #209 - keroberios (02/28/2013) [-]
Or none of the books mean anything and it was all just one big social experiment to see what a room full of kids will do unsupervised.
User avatar #213 to #209 - sirwiggles ONLINE (02/28/2013) [-]
You, i love you sir!
#215 to #213 - thytruth (02/28/2013) [-]
Thank you sir you are so kind.
#12 - felixjarl ONLINE (02/27/2013) [-]
Relegion post, time to post something related and laugh at the people 			************		.
Relegion post, time to post something related and laugh at the people ************ .
User avatar #319 - ezbakeoven ONLINE (02/28/2013) [-]
Even I as an atheist, find this quite stupid and ignorant.
#173 - bossauce (02/28/2013) [-]
MFW funnyjunk can't go a day without a 			*********
MFW funnyjunk can't go a day without a *********
User avatar #237 - ivoryhammer (02/28/2013) [-]
I love how everyone gets all upset when people make fun of religion, something you willingly follow, but everybody just thinks it's hilarious when someone makes fun of race, something that a person cannot control.
#261 to #237 - anon (02/28/2013) [-]
u sir are a genius plz right a book....
would read
User avatar #462 - deathdiedead (02/28/2013) [-]
I'm getting really tired of both atheists and theists because of you faggots.

Why can't you all just the **** up about religion and atheism already?
User avatar #465 to #462 - widerbubbles (02/28/2013) [-]
Not trying to start an argument or anything I just want to point something out. As annoying as they are (I myself am athiest but I separate myself from the ones who don't shut up about it), Christians and other religions do it just as much.
User avatar #475 to #465 - theshadowed ONLINE (02/28/2013) [-]
He did mention theists as well. And we can be worse, suicide bombers and all
User avatar #476 to #475 - widerbubbles (02/28/2013) [-]
Whoops I'm tired and I guess I missed that. But yeah, everyone should chill out about religion and atheism. As long as people don't shove religion down my throat, I'm fine with it. Why can't all the jackass atheists follow the same path? I find all of these pictures funny and everything but there is a point where everything just becomes annoying
User avatar #471 to #462 - darrensankari (02/28/2013) [-]
We can. Once the each group manages to keep their stupidest ***** under control, and teaches them to mind their own business.
#49 - connorsg (02/27/2013) [-]
blah blah blah religion post.
#482 - atheistzilla (02/28/2013) [-]
don't care, i'm an infidel dinosaur
0
#2 - deadfeds **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #59 to #2 - pokemonstheshiz (02/27/2013) [-]
ironically, some religious people
#177 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
If I may, I'd like to take a moment to speak in defense of the atheists on this site.

Do you realize how difficult it is for an atheist or agnostic to express their views in the real world? Not very easily. You'll get funny looks, people questioning your morality or asking dumb questions like knowing the difference between good and evil. Unless you live in a predominantly atheist society, prepare to be either be an outcast or prepare for people trying to save you. America alone is an 80% Christian nation.

Furthermore, most atheists can't admit it to their family out of possible shame unless the parents are atheists themselves. Plus, you'll be lucky if you get any job without ridicule or people trying to convert you. If you're atheist and aiming for a public office, you might as well just stop right now. Out of all the members in Congress, there is is only one person who lists their religious belief as none.

Members of public office in other states in America who have been discovered to be atheist have had impeachment attempts made against them.

To sum it up, religious people have the pretty much the entire globe to be proud of what they believe in. Can you not let the atheists have a place where they can be proud too?

TL;DR Lighten up, religious believers.
User avatar #307 to #177 - YllekNayr (02/28/2013) [-]
Well said, my friend.
#339 to #177 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
With a viewpoint like this, I agree. I have no problem with a passive Atheist that doesn't believe in religion and it ends there. However, those aren't the atheists you hear about. It's said that Atheists are generally "jerks" or whatever they're called, because the Atheists you hear about are the ones that are constantly challenging religion. Same with religious people, though. I, myself, am Christian. However, I don't care what other people are so I don't even have the "who's right and who's wrong" conversations. However, you'll hear of WBP Church, and see that those "Christians" are assholes. You're hear about other ones that are extremists and find them absurd and arrogant. However, you won't hear of my beliefs and how I am a passive believer because I have no significant effect. Atheists that purposely reject "Bless you"s after a sneeze with "I don't believe in God" or that scold people for saying "Oh my God" are the kind of Atheists that are recognized as Atheists and therefore soil the name. Things like this content, while it may be made with good intentions, can be found offensive. It's a challenge on religion, and it's obviously there to call religion out. It's unnecessary. This site is, in my opinion, mostly Atheist or passive religious. These kinds of content are just there to make all the Atheists have a chance to point fingers and laugh. Don't get me wrong, it's clever and rather funny, but it's not necessary. Random challenges to religion is what makes people find Atheists so ballsy. Thoughts?
#371 to #339 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
(I apologize in advance if I am addressing the wrong thing. This message is going off the assumption you are asking for my thoughts on this content. Furthermore, I apologize for taking awhile to reply. It took me awhile to word this post the way I wanted)

It is content like this, in my opinion, that makes stereotypical atheists seem like their "superior grasp of logic" (note the quotations) makes religion look like a big joke. Since the content is in favor of atheism, it will be the dominant theme of the comments, which leads me to my next thought.

Another thing I think can be seen by this content and the resulting comments is the mockery the religious get if they cannot immediately refute an atheist. If the theist does not satisfactorily refute the atheists claims, then instead of backing off, the stereotypical atheist will obnoxiously point and laugh at the theist. I think that's a key event that gives atheists their smug reputation.

I think in addition to making atheists seem ballsy, it also gives the impression that Atheists are no better than the extremists they claim to condemn. How? This content gives the implication of "If you look at religion this way, then you'll see that religion is dumb and makes no sense, and you're an idiot if you're a theist". and then you'll hear of the really dumb "challenges" like "If God exists, he should strike me with lightning".

I find it annoying that posts challenging religion do so in a really obnoxious way. Like I said in the above paragraph, it gives the implication that not only should religion be viewed as dumb, but also, by extension, there is no good that can come of believing in it, and that is simply not true.

While I do think that Atheists should express their beliefs, doing so by obnoxiously mocking (as seen in the content) isn't going to make anyone think better of atheists. Furthermore, I think that if a stereotypical atheist is going to dish it out, they better be ready to take it as well.
#411 to #371 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I meant thoughts on my entire comments. I agree with you completely, but I have one remark:

I don't know if your "strike me with lightning" comment was on purpose, but if not, you are my new best friend. If you don't understand, check my username.
#443 to #411 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
First off, I thought I'd see if you were reading through my comments, so I tossed that one in there. :P

Continuing on, I'll provide my thoughts as much as the character count will allow me. I do think that when it comes to both the theists and the atheists, it seems like only the radical ones of each side get time in the spotlight. I haven't heard too much about the atheists that change religion often. The ones I hear most about are the ones that are overly cocky, and refuse to listen to a theists perspective.

The reason I think that a passive believer such as yourself or an passive atheist such as myself don't get the spotlight very often is not due to not having significant effect. I think it's a more physical reason than that. We hear about Westboro and more arrogant atheists because their actions are far more brazen and controversial. Doing things that challenges the norms of society in such a manner is what gets you noticed. Since you and I are passive, we are not really pushing the envelope, so to speak. We are not attempting to rile the public, and we are not so firmly entrenched in what we think that we do not listen to outsiders, and so, to put it bluntly, we're boring, and those that go with the flow don't make waves. Does that mean our opinions are worth less? No. It just means that people notice something extraordinary before something perceived as ordinary.

Unfortunately, because these people are all we see, both theists and atheists are put seen in a negative fashion by the other side. That's why it's my opinion that instead of yelling at the other side for ruining the image of one side, both theists and atheists that aren't them should set out and prove through action, that they are not all the stereotypes the other side has heard about.

Content like this is also just a way of reinforcing the stereotypes of one side, atheists in this case. It doesn't help to disprove the notion that all atheists are cocky assholes, and ends up being detrimental.
#449 to #443 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I have to say, I enjoy conversing with you. If I weren't in the middle of writing a research paper, I would be much more involved.

While I agree with the fact that we hear more of the radicals because they're outside of the average attitude of society, I have to disagree and say that our opinions, as passive theists/atheists, are worth less. We are part of a group with beliefs that are not controversial. If I tell you "Humans breathe air," you will agree and we will move on because there is nothing to disagree or argue. However, if I tell you "I wish humans could breathe underwater," there is something to argue so a conversation could ensue. There's an agreement or disagreement to be had because there is more than one side to the topic.

If I tell you "I am Christian, but I don't care what other people believe," the general response is appreciation. Nobody is going to scold me for doing exactly what I'm supposed to do as a Christian and not harming anybody. However, if I say "I am Christian, and you should be too," you could disagree and then conversations on belief begin.

Because controversy and conversation cannot ignite from passive thoughts such as ours, they become unimportant to society as opinions.
#461 to #449 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
While I do agree with your reasoning as to how our views are seen, I have to challenge your view of them being less important, and (if you haven't guessed by now) I'll tell you why.

First off, I'd like to point to your "I wish humans could breathe air" statement. That view is not exactly controversial, but actually imaginative and leaves itself open to interesting speculation as to how it might be different if that's how humans breathed air. A controversial statement would be "Humans don't actually breathe air. We actually breathe by involuntarily conducting photosynthesis".

Getting to my actual reasoning as to my challenge, a view that is seen as not against the norms does not mean either it or the person who believes it is valued any less or seen as insignificant, belief-wise because if those views were as you claim they were, then by eliminating them, the controversial views would become the dominant view, and would run unopposed. I'll give you an example to show you what I mean:

Say there was a person claiming that humans actually conducted photosynthesis. By the logic you're stating, if someone went up and directly challenged the controversial view with the accepted view society has, that we breathe air, their opinion would be pushed to the side. Let's go one more step and say this person was posted on Funnyjunk. If the accepted view were seen as less valuable and unimportant to society, then those who would state that humans actually breathe air would be criticized for believing that view.

That's rarely the case when someone with a controversial view makes it into the spotlight. Depending on the severity of the controversy caused, that person will usually be ignored or ridiculed, and the accepted norm will continue to stand.

To put it bluntly, I think that more passive views aren't heard of as much because they aren't money makers. They don't draw attention. However, that does not mean their importance or worth is any less.
#510 to #461 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I understand your reasoning. Your thoughts make perfect sense, but I believe we've reached a misunderstanding.

See, I don't mean they're less significant because they're pushed aside. I mean that, because they're so normal and widely accepted, they don't need people constantly defending them.

Using your example, if someone says that we conduct involuntary photosynthesis, one of two things will happen: someone will say that it's an interesting way to look at it, or someone will think they're wrong or will disagree because we obviously require an oxygen intake rather than one of carbon dioxide and will either argue or let it the person think what they'd like.

In this analogy, you and I would simply let the person think what they'd like. If we do that, our opinions matter less because they aren't publicly challenging what is being stated. Because we don't bluntly state our opinion, our opinion is seen as weak, because we don't try to spread it as fact and therefore, according to society, we are unsure about them. Someone who would call the person out on their misinterpretation of the respiratory system would be the one with the recognized opinion. Even if we have the same opinion, ours have no strength behind it.
#516 to #510 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
You're implying (I think) that nothing can be gained from focusing on someone with a passive opinion that goes along with the majority since there is an abundance of those views already. I strongly disagree with that assessment on the grounds a passive opinion to the accepted view does not automatically mean being passive or nonchalant about the entire topic.

It is entirely possible to go along with the majority and have a passive opinion with the main point but have a differing view as to how your belief works, or have a different way of reaching what the majority view is. Furthermore, you could go along with the main view, but disagree with bits and pieces about it. It's input of those that are passive which drives much of our world.

Think of it this way: What if the only feedback a company got was assertive views of both sides when asking for how an aspect could be improved. The company would be at a loss in determining what it should actually do. The opinions of a passive person could be seen as "This person seems to like the way things are, but doesn't denounce change. Perhaps we should consider keeping things the same for now, but leave the door open for improvements". In choosing such an option, it could result in helping to boost happiness of both sides who may have been more assertive since they each got something they wanted, and could be better for a company whose still unsure about making changes at the time. Yet, that decided action didn't come from one who strongly asserted their side. It came from a passive thinker.
#518 to #516 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I think you've got me beat at this point. I don't have a rebuttal for that because I see no flaws in your argument.

I have to say, you're the most intellectual person I've ever had the pleasure to debate with, and you definitely know your way around the English language. I'm glad to have had this opportunity.
#520 to #518 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
I thank you very much for such a kind compliment. I would like to share my opinion of you as well.

You are someone I'm glad to have conversed with, especially because throughout our discourse, you did not sink to calling me names or trying to start a ragefest, or dismiss what I said for an arbitrary reason. You continued to converse with me even though our views are different, and when I misunderstood, you instead told me what you meant instead of calling me names. Such a conversational partner seems to not come along very often, and I'm honestly glad that we had this discourse. If you ever are really bored and check through other comments I've made, you'll find I love to have debates, as I believe they keep the mind sharp.

I would like to also return the compliment in regards to mastery of the English language. It was always fun to read your replies because you went beyond normal expressions to get your point home.

Perhaps we'll have another discussion sometime?

(MFW your generous compliments:
<--
#521 to #520 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I find an angry debate the least useful. It isn't truly a debate if there is no swaying of opinion being had. There's no reason to get angry because you didn't downsize my opinion a single time; you simply stated your own and gave your own supporting details. People are too sensitive to words nowadays. People believe that because they get offended, something should be done about the offense.

I'm always open to a friendly debate about any topic I have knowledge on. If I'm ignorant on the topic, then it's more of a lesson than a debate. Feel free to PM me or comment on my profile at any time; there's never a time that I'm not willing to socialize. Even in the worst of moods, the only cure to irritability is letting yourself be in your normal environment -- which happens to be socialization in my case.

Thank you for your compliment. While I'm not disagreeing, I fail to see any abnormal expressions that I've said. Although, if I said them, they must be normal to me. It's also a possibility that I'm saying expressions incorrectly; I'm not a native English speaker.

I'll do the honors of sending you a friend request.
User avatar #522 to #521 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
Not a native English speaker? You truly could have fooled me (not sarcasm). I never would have guessed.

As for me, my English usage comes from my parents. They have an extensive vocabulary and love reading, and as a result, they're great at using the language. They bestowed such wisdom on me, and I just ran with it. For that I am grateful.

As for abnormal expressions, what I meant is that you found ways to reword your statements if I misunderstood or if they were unclear, making it easier for me to reply. What made it more impressive is that, in my opinion, these weren't light topics, yet you were able to rephrase them (what seemed like from my perspective) effortlessly. That's amazing.

Friend request accepted. :)
#523 to #522 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I am born in France. I live in the United States now, but my first language is French.

That's always great. I get most of my syntax and diction from fights with my ex-girlfriend, honestly. I've found that the only way to calm a raging bull is to be calmer than the bull before the rage.

Well, thank you! I'm glad to be able to clarify what I'm trying to say without sounding like a bumbling buffoon. You seem to effortlessly throw your sentences together as well, and even with complex sentence structure, your sentences are easy to follow.
#372 to #177 - fedexman (02/28/2013) [-]
****		 storm a brewin
**** storm a brewin
User avatar #394 to #177 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
Really? I think you're over-exaggerating quite a bit here. I used to be an atheist, not so much anymore, but I was never once ridiculed over it. My parents, siblings, and friends were perfectly ok with it, nobody at school seemed to care, and it didn't effect my social life in the least. So unless you live in a hardcore Chrisitian community and you're not shoving it down people's throats, I don't see how it can really effect how you go about your day.
#439 to #394 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Of course it would be dumb to say that there are no exceptions to a rule, and what I posted is no exception. In my post I said that it's not very easy, not impossible. In addition, you don't have to live in a hardcore religious community for any of this to happen. I can't say your experience was wrong, but I will say that it's a weak way to back up your claim, and I'll tell you why.

It's not exactly fair to point to an exception to the rule and based on that one exception, assert that an entire data set is wrong. There will always be people who are exceptions to stated views of the world, but just because they are an exception does not mean the norm itself is wrong. Especially since, as I said previously, I didn't say it was impossible, just not very easy. I could just as easily say that where I lived, it wasn't a heavily Christian community, and I would get weird looks if I didn't say I was Christian. In that scenario, its just personal experience and really holds no merit since our claims cancel each other out.

Do you happen to have some more solid evidence for your claim?
User avatar #490 to #439 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
I don't see how anyone could back up their point on anything like this over the Internet nor do I know of any sort of physical proof or data I can show you to prove my claim. You're saying that atheists are often treated as social outcasts and are ridiculed for their beliefs, and I disagree based off of my past experience. Just because someone is Christian, doesn't mean that they'll try to "save you" or try to convert you if your an atheist. The grand majority of ones I know are generally tolerant people and they don't really care what your religion is. Sure, it may be harder to be elected into a government office, but that's really the only point of yours I really agree on.
#508 to #490 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Well, based on the fact that I have a number of people here agreeing with me and the number of thumbs I received, then it seems that even going off of this small pool of information, the facts lean in my direction.

If my statement were over-exaggerating, don't you think the users here (that are ready to pounce on anything incorrect like a lion ready to pounce on its next meal) would have called me out on it before you? My post was up for 5 hours before you responded, and gained plenty of thumbs in that time. If it was over-exaggerating, I do believe more people would have said so.

Does this comment thread speak for everyone? Of course not. However, it does seem to lean more in my direction than in yours.
User avatar #509 to #508 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
So we're deciding this based on Funnyjunk users, many of whom are bipolar to the point that they blatantly speak about how religion is such an awful thing one day, then preach about how atheists shove their beliefs down people's throats and how religion is a good thing the next. Your statements are no more supported than mine.
User avatar #514 to #509 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
First off, you assume all funnyjunk users are morons (you don't state it directly, but it is obviously implied), which is really mean of you. If you read just some of the conversations I've had below, that alone proves that your claim is incorrect, as it has been seen that plenty of funnyjunk users are intelligent enough to think for themselves.

Second, if what you claim about funnyjunk users being "bipolar" was true, then it stands to reason I would have had many more complaints to my comment. The chance that everybody's "bipolar" tendencies are perfectly in sync with one another is practically zero. Case in point, you displayed the "characteristics" you defined in your statement, meaning that not all of funnyjunk users think the same, meaning that I should have had more strong dissenters besides you. I did not, so therefore, your statement is nothing more than a farce, and is invalid.

You backed yourself into a corner. If your bipolar statement is not allowed to stand, then all you're doing is basically saying that the evidence doesn't lean in my direction just because you don't like the it. Even if your bipolar statement is allowed to stand, I've already proven it to be invalid.

I'm not done yet.

Third, you're making a strawman argument in response to my claim. I have evidence on this comment thread that I can point to, and logical reasoning to back it up. Your counter-argument is attacking the evidence presented by basically saying "that evidence doesn't count", with no further proof of backing it up other than your mass generalization.

Based on these points, my presented evidence is still allowed to stand because I have provided evidence, and you have not satisfactorily dismissed it. Therefore, your comment claiming of our statements being of equal merit is rendered invalid, and by extension, your statement of over-exaggeration is also rendered invalid unless you can bring a real argument to the table.

The burden of proof is on you.
#515 to #514 - blacknbluebrony (03/01/2013) [-]
I never even claimed that all the users on this site are morons, you're just assuming that. All I said what that they are bipolar to the point where you'll see posts hating on a certain topic one day, and the next day it will be the complete obvious. As in the site as a whole has a bipolar tendency, not every single user.

You've basically gone against my claims by stating that I needed physical proof , that you were correct based off of the fact that maybe a few users on this site agree with you, and that you were just using "common sense". I'm speaking from what I assumed was common sense and my own past experience, put you claimed these as irrelevant, but the same can be said about your own argument. Like I said, you claim I lack evidence when you're the one basing your whole argument on a rather infinitesimal portion of a website for funny pictures, you're claim of using logical reasoning (which is a very abstract subject), but you really have no other supporting points besides that. So of course I dismissed your evidence as nearly irrelevant.

Now back on subject. You claim that any atheistic or agnostic person is oppressed in society, and I only disagreed. Now, unless you live in some deep south, strongly conservative town, generally almost every Christian I can think of are tolerant to the beliefs of others unless you try to shove yours down their throats -which seems to happen A LOT on here.

Religious people run the world? In a way yes, mainly because they are the majority, so of course the majority of leaders are religious. But they're certainly not oppressed from being able to achieve in life. Although there aren't many non-religious people who hold public offices in the US, it is quite common in many other countries. Plus a large percentage of scientists and other related professions are atheistic as well. So the non-religious are being oppressed and treated as outcasts? Hardly.

#519 to #515 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
As I said in my statement, you didn't claim it, but you heavily implied it. By saying that they are bipolar and constantly changing their opinions/hopping on a bandwagon, you're implying that a majority of the users here are too stupid to think for themselves and will instead just follow whatever appears to be the popular opinion. So, yeah, you didn't say exactly that the people of the site are dumb, but you made quite the heavy implication from it.    
   
Furthermore, you assume that just because a piece of content makes it to the front page, that automatically means that the entire site agrees with it being there. You also assume that it's always the same people thumbing up the differing content which gets it to the front page and noticed, that it's the same people who make the comments that agree with religious posts and then turn around and agree with atheists posts. By saying &quot;the site as a whole&quot;, that means you're including every user who uses the site. if you make any exclusions, then its not the site as a whole, just part of it.   
   
You claim they are hardly oppressed and treated as outcasts, that my whole argument is based on the comments section of my original comment. The comment favoring my side is only the tip of the iceberg, as I'm about to show you. You want evidence? I've got plenty:   
   
First: tinyurl.com/mnljwa   
Second: tinyurl.com/37683   
Third: tinyurl.com/akvssv9   
Fourth: tinyurl.com/b4m6jxv   
Fifth: tinyurl.com/5q4oj   
Sixth: tinyurl.com/bjzxxcv   
Seventh: tinyurl.com/axa27g6   
Eighth: tinyurl.com/bbl937t   
Ninth: tinyurl.com/r4jncj   
Tenth: tinyurl.com/cfo34ca   
   
Read all these and then try to justify your position that atheists &quot;hardly&quot; face oppression or are treated as outcasts. Don't be shy about asking for more either, there's plenty where those came from.
As I said in my statement, you didn't claim it, but you heavily implied it. By saying that they are bipolar and constantly changing their opinions/hopping on a bandwagon, you're implying that a majority of the users here are too stupid to think for themselves and will instead just follow whatever appears to be the popular opinion. So, yeah, you didn't say exactly that the people of the site are dumb, but you made quite the heavy implication from it.

Furthermore, you assume that just because a piece of content makes it to the front page, that automatically means that the entire site agrees with it being there. You also assume that it's always the same people thumbing up the differing content which gets it to the front page and noticed, that it's the same people who make the comments that agree with religious posts and then turn around and agree with atheists posts. By saying "the site as a whole", that means you're including every user who uses the site. if you make any exclusions, then its not the site as a whole, just part of it.

You claim they are hardly oppressed and treated as outcasts, that my whole argument is based on the comments section of my original comment. The comment favoring my side is only the tip of the iceberg, as I'm about to show you. You want evidence? I've got plenty:

First: tinyurl.com/mnljwa
Second: tinyurl.com/37683
Third: tinyurl.com/akvssv9
Fourth: tinyurl.com/b4m6jxv
Fifth: tinyurl.com/5q4oj
Sixth: tinyurl.com/bjzxxcv
Seventh: tinyurl.com/axa27g6
Eighth: tinyurl.com/bbl937t
Ninth: tinyurl.com/r4jncj
Tenth: tinyurl.com/cfo34ca

Read all these and then try to justify your position that atheists "hardly" face oppression or are treated as outcasts. Don't be shy about asking for more either, there's plenty where those came from.
#398 to #177 - psychrophile (02/28/2013) [-]
Eh, I'm a PhD student studying evolutionary biology. I fit in pretty well as an atheist.
User avatar #448 to #177 - localcatbarber (02/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, I see how being an atheist in america must suck. In Norway, or at least in my social circle, only about 10% belong to a church/organized religious group, so they become the outcasts. I'm agnostic, so I sort of avoid the fire on both sides, I guess.
User avatar #459 to #177 - ainoninom (02/28/2013) [-]
sheeit, In new zealand you get funny looks when people funny looks when people find out you're a christian.. but two seconds later no-one gives two ***** .
#278 to #177 - anon (02/28/2013) [-]
That's like saying, "I came from an abusive household so I'm going to beat the **** out of my kid all I want".

If your problem with religious people is that they're apparently shaming and ridiculing you then you've clearly missed a step in logic if your proud of creating the exact inverse online.
User avatar #300 to #278 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Yeeaah see... No, what you said is not like what I said.

What I said is like saying "Everyone around me likes pokemon and I don't. It's hard for me to say I don't like pokemon without being ostracized. I'd like a place where I can say I don't like it without being treated like a leper".

Also, you missed my point, anon. I don't want to create the exact same kind of thing but for Atheists, because that would be really hypocritical. What I meant was a place where atheists can say "Hey I'm an Atheist" and not get shunned for it. Does that mean they are immune from criticism and jokes? Of course not. I am not new to the internet. Nothing is excluded from mockery, and honestly, I don't approve of the "HAHA UR RELIGIOUS" atheists, because they're hypocrites.

To sum it all up, my post is saying "Hey, let's give Atheists a place to be proud of what they believe, since there isn't many other places they can" not "LOL RELIJUN IS DUM GTFO GOD LUVR!"

So many people here get on Atheists for being here. I was just explaining why.
User avatar #207 to #177 - laky (02/28/2013) [-]
Oh god i actually feel bad for all of you living in the states.
User avatar #295 to #177 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
From an unbiased prospective Science and Religion amount to the same thing. A person (priest/teacher) tells you something that they read in a book (bible/textbook) written by someone you have never met, that talks about an event (miracle/experiment) that you have probably never experienced.
So until you have personally recreated Rutherford's experiment and every experiment that it was built upon, saying that we are made of tiny particles that physically take up less than 100th of the space they occupy has equivalent grounds to saying a magic sky genie created everything in a week.

TL;DR It all comes down to which band wagon you jump on and how far you let it take you.
#308 to #295 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Before I begin my reponse, I want to preface it with a this: I am not insulting you or anything about you. I am merely keeping up a lively debate because I believe it helps keep a mind sharp.

They aren't exactly the same thing, and I'm going to tell you why:

First off, the bible was written millenia ago and has been translated several times, whereas we have textbooks that stay in use until they are edited with up to date information. Religious books such as the Bible, the Koran, etc., are practically never updated except if a new translation comes out, but that really isn't updating it.

Furthermore, in textbooks found in class, several of the experiments listed in there can be duplicated and seen for yourself, whereas the events discussed in religious holy books can't, at least not very easily. I mean, I can open up my Chemistry textbook and see that there is an experiment for testing how much of a compound is in a solution, and I could run it for myself and see that it works. I can't exactly walk on water (I know its an overused example. Forgive me, I just got done with schoolwork).

As to the point of replicating Rutherford's experiment, that's not exactly true. I can take a sample of my skin or blood or something of the like, and run a few chemistry experiments (such as Infrared Spectroscopy, Titration (maybe), etc.), and from the results of those tests, I can determine how which elements the components of sample share characteristics with, and therefore I can determine what I'm made of.

There's really no way to prove that a sky wizard made everything in seven days, so based on the fact that I can use a number of scientific methods to figure out what I'm made of and (guess) how long the planet has been here, but I really can't do that with the Bible since it basically says "Because I said so", then the evidence lies in favor of science.

Perhaps I'm missing something though. I'm always open to a new viewpoint and lively debate. What's your take on this?
User avatar #327 to #308 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
All the test that you proposed to prove something only work with prior knowledge. The main point that I was trying to make is that both are supported by a circular argument. The only thing that truly supports science is science and the only thing that truly supports faith is faith. Each scientific theory is supported by an experiment given that another concept is true. That concept is supported by an experiment given another concept is true. Eventually you will get to a concept that is supported only by it being commonly accepted as true. If the concept that is supported only by it being commonly accepted as true is a magic sky daddy that created the universe, you have a religion.
#340 to #327 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
If I'm understanding you right (and I want to make this clear: Do not hesitate to tell me if I'm perceiving the wrong message), you're basically saying that atheism is, in and of itself, a religion. You're reasoning for this is that any recorded experiment goes off of prior knowledge, and this eventually keeps going backwards until you reach a point where a piece of prior knowledge has no (perceived) scientific basis, and is based solely on faith.

To put it in a shorter way, you're saying that all of what science perceives to be true is based of what is seen as base facts that have their roots in a perceived belief of the way the world works, and that's what makes Atheism a religion (like I said, if I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm here to learn (and make a good name for Atheists), not to condescend).

While that is a fascinating line of thinking that I will dwell on, I'm not entirely sure that train of thought could put Atheism under a religion. Of course, I will back up my claim.

First off, while it may have been faith of perceived facts that were the basis of what we know today to be science, those facts have been made obsolete because science seeks to improve what it finds to be incorrect. Although it may a system only used on earth, the methods science has created to study the world around us have proven effective thus far.

What seperates science from normal religion even further is that science continues to progress and move forward, seeking to learn more. Religion does not do this, and it is content to stay where it is for long periods of time, only changing if it absolutely has to, and even then, it is only done begrudgingly. Science is willing to show how it got its results, instead of saying "because I said so".

Whether or not I believe in science does not make what science proves any less true or valid. Light will reflect off of surfaces whether I believe it or not. Water will turn to ice at low temperatures, whether I believe it or not.
User avatar #373 to #340 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
The scientific method is a way to find a perspectives on how the world works.
Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".

As for atheism, atheism is not a religion but a subset of the many religions people can have. In terms of deities, you could be either theist or atheist. If you are a theist you could be polytheist or a monotheist. If you are a monotheist you could be a Jew, Muslim, deist, Pastafarian, etc. From the little I've read about Scientology, it could be considered a form of atheism or polytheism depending on how you look at it. According to Scientology "people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature". On one hand, if everyone is divine, you could say that everyone could be considered a god and Scientology is a polytheistic religion. On the other hand, because there is no higher deity than a person, you could say Scientology is an atheist religion.
#416 to #373 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
An interesting comparison (not trolling, I mean it). However, by your own definitions, science is not a religion.

Your definitions say that the scientific method is a way to find a perspective on how the world works, but religion is a set of beliefs on how the world works (I know its not exact, but you know what I mean). In that sense, science seeks to find how the world works, while religion states that it believes it already knows how the universe works. This goes back to what I said in comment #240 in that religion is stagnant, whereas science is not. I don't think by this point in our conversation, I need to state examples of the latter.

Science is not a belief in the sense that it is true just because someone says it is true. Science differs from religion in that regard in the sense that what science says is true can be replicated, and I can find the answers in textbooks. However, it's not exactly clear how I can ask a divine being (or beings) for answers. Yes, science does have some degree of belief, but that belief is backed up by evidence we can see. Religious belief is to believe in something without having a definitive method of proving it (I'm running out of character count, or else I'd go into a bit more detail here).

Onto the rest of your statement, I would argue that Scientology is not an atheist religion, because that's an oxymoron. In addition, atheists do not believe in a divinity of any kind, so therefore Scientology cannot be an atheist religion on the grounds that atheists believe that we are nothing more than organic life forms with a limited lifespan that have no "forgotten past" or things of the like. The human brain has been mapped and nothing of the sort has been found. Furthermore, if one makes the claim that this "forgotten knowledge" is immeasurable or exists outside of nature, then it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore is in the same boat as the existence of God, and is therefore rejected by the atheist.
User avatar #454 to #416 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
Atheism comes from "a" meaning without and theos meaning god. As I define earlier, religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Saying that there can't be an atheist religion is the same as saying that unless you believe in god, you have no beliefs on the origin (cause) of the universe or the how it works (nature).
#473 to #454 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
I challenge your notion that there is such a thing as an atheist religion. Saying there can be an atheist religion is like saying there is such a thing as a triangle with five points. Obviously, I will defend myself (Also I am letting you know. It's really late so I have to go to bed soon (Class at 8:30. It's 1.45). I plan on replying, but it won't be until much later).

First, while I won't deny where the word atheist got its start, it, much like way of thinking it represents, has changed over time, and now means more than just "without god". However, that's not the meat of my argument here.

Religion is, as you say, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism, which uses science to explain the world around it, is not a religion because it is not a system of beliefs. It is a system of proven methods to explain the world around us, it is not a belief. A belief means to have faith without having a logical reason for said faith.

Science does have logical reason to be followed, because its results can be replicated. As I said in an earlier comment, I don't have to believe in science for it to be true. I don't have to believe that electrical currents travelling through circuit is what makes light bulbs illuminate my room. It will be true whether I believe in it or not.

There cannot be an atheist religion if atheism, which is rooted in science and therefore has logical reason to be followed because of the fact that its results can be replicated and seen by the human eye, and religion is belief that requires faith with no logical reason to back it up, and can't be replicated so that they can be observed.

What are your thoughts on this?
User avatar #185 to #177 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
That is one sad true mon, religion is dominant and that's a huge problem for the society.
I am so glad I'm not living in America, After reading "The American taliban" quotes I got sick to my stomach. Is it really so horrible out there?
#220 to #185 - riventhexile (02/28/2013) [-]
ok, 1) i really is not that bad hear in the states, at least I dont think it is. and of course if some one who is a christian, and knows an athiest, of course they are going to try and convert them. its part of what they believe! 2) i've gotten just as much **** from athiests in my short life. now i'm not saying that christians have it bad in any way, i'm just stating that it goes both ways. 3) i don't know what the "american taliban" quotes are. but it's probably not as bad as what they make it out to be.
User avatar #226 to #220 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
Google it for adultthought website. I was mortified. It might not be the only proof of what a horrible influence religions have in the present, but a damn good one.
User avatar #236 to #226 - riventhexile (02/28/2013) [-]
hmmmm yeah those all do seem to be pretty disgusting. i have no doubt though that these people are NOT the majority, and if any of them tried to pass any of their rediculous ideas through congress they would get shut down. also they had several quotes from KNOWN hate groups in there, such as the westboro baptist church, which doesn't do to well with the credibility imo,
User avatar #218 to #185 - TripleCarbon (02/28/2013) [-]
I don't have anything else to compare it to, as I've only lived here.
But I would say yes and no. A lot of things suck, a lot of things don't suck.
Completely vague answer but it's too broad of a topic.
User avatar #217 to #177 - shmoopy (02/28/2013) [-]
I get asked the morality question fairly often. I tell them that I think about how I would want to be treated if I were in a given situation. Then they tell me that "Do unto others as they do unto you" is in the Bible. I mean, it's not like the Bible invented that concept, but they don't care. It's in the Bible therefore only people touched by Christianity can think that way. I still can't think of a follow up that isn't insulting. It's infuriating.
User avatar #222 to #177 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
You want a place for Atheist to say what they want, and have no one question it? Everyone has a right to believe what they want, and say what they want. But the moment you try to say that I can't argue with you about it, or point out problems in what you're saying, that's where it starts to sound a bit stupid. Just say and post what you want, but don't get mad when someone disagrees with it.
User avatar #234 to #222 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
You misinterpreted him. He never asked for a place where atheism would be unquestionable - it would only transform it into an another religion. Read the post more carefully.

On a side note, about the freedom to openly express their beliefs - why do we give such an exclusive right to expressing religion? Afterall, we do silence any sexism/racism.
User avatar #238 to #234 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
I personally don't get offended when people express their opinion. I'd rather not have any one place where one belief is consider stronger than another one. Questions, and disbelief is important to an extent. Atheism is not a religion. It's a lack of religion. Why would you want to transform something that rejects religions, into a religion itself? People express their beliefs every day. Anywhere where a certain religion holds more power than another, it will become what I just explained. A place where anyone who questions the idea will be blindly hated for no reason. The internet is pretty even in my opinion, there are of course sites dedicated to Atheism, and sites dedicated to other beliefs. Atheism shouldn't take hold of the internet and make it it's home. This is coming from a christian who isn't effected by people stating their beliefs, nor people shoving them down my throat. I understand he was not saying what I inferred, but it's what it will become.
User avatar #245 to #238 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
I would like to think that I promote less of an Atheism, but more like reasonable thinking and facts. I do not mind people having their own personal opinions on the existence of deities(even if the chances are proven to be very,very slim; even I can't deny there MIGHT be Futurama's God).
What I am fighting is religion as a structure, an organized set of rules prejudices. That's where the straightforward evil is presently coming.
User avatar #253 to #245 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
All this could be fixed if people woke up and decided to think for themselves. I see nothing wrong with churches, but there has to be a moment where people actually have to understand that just because that person is a priest, or preacher, he isn't God himself. As for your beliefs in if God is real or not. It's not something that can be proven. You have to have faith in him, and that is the point of God in my opinion. He doesn't want there to be proof of his existence, he wants you to put faith in him being real. I personally don't find that difficult at all, but some people do. It's not my place to try to convert you, it's up to you to choose what you think is best.
User avatar #274 to #253 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
How could you even convert if I haven't got the slightest idea what you believe in. Even if I were to believe that there is an omnipotent being, it would change nothing.I don't proclaim my beliefs in my post, I state facts and conclusions: 1) the chance of there actually being a God is slim. Acting upon it would be like betting on flipping the coin on heads 1000 times in a row. 2) Religion at its core is harmful for the society in the present
User avatar #303 to #274 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
Religion isn't harmful. The people involved are harmful. Calling religion evil is like calling a gun evil, or calling a hammer evil, or any other tool. Religion at it's basics is a tool to help people live their life. When people take that tool, and use it for evil means, they are evil, not the tool itself. Calling religion harmful to society is just ignorant and ignoring all the good it has brought. I have full belief in God, one hundred percent. I don't look at it like flipping a coin, I look at it as believing in something good, and powerful.
User avatar #318 to #303 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
The problem is, it really IS harmful. I'm not pulling it out of my hat either. If you want to compare it to a tool, it would be an unstable time bomb.
Look , it is very late and I won't be able to put down the whole reasoning, but I'll give a few points here. Do note that my target is not personal beliefs, but religion as a structure:
* It promotes blind faith. You can see it in every religion. The members are asked to shove aside any facts and reasoning for undeniable "truth. That's how you get zealots with undeniable faith, easy to manipulate by offering rewards in the supposed afterlife.
* They try to enforce morals through books/stories/scripts. And the problem is that morals evolve. "Sacred" documents do not. They're recollections of ancient morals and the people's view's on the world, which really were advanced for that time, BUT emphasis on 'that time' - we live in the present.
* They create intolerance and divide people. Sure, they all make poems about the love for the family and neighbours, but that's where the love ends. Look at Ireland -the northern and the southern parts still can't get along! And for what!? All because children were told from the start that THEIR religion is true, that THEY are superior and the others are infidels.
And that leads to probably the biggest offender of all:
*Child abuse. Literal. Psychological. All those stories about hell and torture, all those preaches about the superiority are shoved into them. Into kids, who take it all literally, who still don't know any better. It is not because they are stupid, no, it is because they are genetically programmed to believe what they are told, to fallow the advice of the ones who have survived and thus should know better. All of this is sometimes almost impossible to get rid of upon adulthood. Thus, the cycle continues.
There is also contravercity, violence, double meaning but zzzzzz...
If you were not tought like that, then you are not a Christian. And be proud of it!
User avatar #405 to #318 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
I was taught that my religion (Christianity) is right. Everyone else is wrong, IE Atheists, Buddest, ect. I was taught that the bible (New testament) is the word of God. I was taught that homosexuality is wrong. I was taught that Hell is real, but I was never once threatened with it. I was told that as long as I believe, and pray for forgiveness that I will be fine. I was also taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner. On top of that, I was taught that God doesn't want hate in your heart. Your examples for religion being harmful for the most part stem from people. The bible never says to murder in the name of God. People tell you to murder in the name of God. The bible never says to scare, and put fear into children. People put fear into children. As for your thoughts on intolerance, people create intolerance, not God. God does not say to insult, or harm people who are homosexual, or who don't believe the same as you. People do it because they can't handle someone living differently than them. As for blind faith. I don't see anything harmful in denying things that other people consider true. That doesn't seem to hurt anyone. If someone wants to believe that the sky is purple, It doesn't affect me. Now if they were to start murdering people that didn't believe the sky is purple, then it's the fault of the man manipulating them, not the religion itself. Evolving morals is just a matter of opinion. Morals are the same in my opinion. Murder is still murder. Stealing is still stealing. Abortion, and homosexuality are the ones that can be argued the most. But still, I have my beliefs and you have yours. I don't go around killing gay people, nor do I kill people who are pro-choice. Religion isn't evil, people are evil. Religion isn't harmful, people who lie, and manipulate are.
User avatar #489 to #405 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
Open your eyes man! Right now it is blind faith talking! Think God damn, THINK what comes with blind faith that ignores all FACTS! I believe that the mines are harmful and run through the mine field, you believe that being stabbed is a pleasurable experience and go on a rampage! Or how about two seemingly normal and well educated students who put their blind faith that they are doing the right thing and are getting rewarded in heaven??? Referring to London's metro terrorist act!!!! Believing in something is just one step from ACTING upon it! Asking to blame only the people and not the medium is like legalizing all drugs! Hey, lets overlook that he was forcefully injected with hallucinogens that made him kill his wife, the drug is totally harmless.
"God does not say to insult, or harm people who are homosexual"
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
" The bible never says to murder in the name of God."
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"
It takes just one search. I believe that Bibles does proclaim murder. Go on, put your blind faith and ignore the facts that are in thine Book of Truths. The sky is purple afterall.
User avatar #517 to #489 - matthewfuckingmain (03/01/2013) [-]
All your quotes are from the old testament. Which is outdated and doesn't speak for me, or most Christians. I expected you to know that. "Open my eyes?" My eyes are wide open. The thing that is talking is my beliefs and my opinion. If you classify every instance of Christians standing up for the faith as "Blind Faith" then I can't take you seriously. Legalizing all drugs would stop the illegal drug cartels, and be helpful. People that do heroine will do heroine. Making all personal choices illegal won't stop heroine, or any other drug won't stop it from happening. You aren't making any sense. You just named all acts that people got forced into doing, or manipulated into doing. Also your facts aren't exactly facts. I'm not here to convert you, I'm not here to argue opinions with you. Which is what we're doing. There are no facts in what we're discussing. It's all faith, and without faith, man would be nothing. Believe what you want, it won't effect me. Like I said I haven't gone around and murdered people for my belief, nor would I ever. All of theses examples don't have anything to do with me, because they don't apply to me. I won't be memorized or hypnotized by some crazy man. Your blame for violence in the world is misplaced. Start blaming the choice, not the religions, or the guns. I hope you will realize that people are to blame for the death and violence in this world, not beliefs. Have a good day, and a great life. God bless.
User avatar #525 to #517 - jedimindaugas (03/01/2013) [-]
Oh I'm not going to set everyone on parole and blame religion only. People are responsible for their actions. However, I do not approve of the negative influence. Now you might say that you can learn a lot in the preaches, but that's humans talking. Religion at its basic level is a negative influence due to blind faith and I do not mean faith in the existence of a deity. However, unbreakable faith in the teachings leads to easy manipulation and straightforward "the American Taliban".
As for the Jesus quotes..:
""I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" Luke 19:26-27"
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. — Luke 19:27"
The Jesus followers were like a sect, encouraging to leave their families, friends etc. He also promoted self-loathe and everywhere you turn it is sin, sin,sin, sin, repent,repent, you are lousy, repent, sin.
Granted, these are far fewer in between, most often wrapped in between the lines, BUT there isn't a single line that would suggest disregarding OT. In fact, there are plenty of lines suggesting that Jesus came to reinforce them. We all know that both OT and NT were delivered by a God. Does that mean he had a change of hearth? AFAIK the almighty should be unchanging.
Face it, it is the PEOPLE who CHOSE to obey NT only, it is the PEOPLE who take note and preach (mostly) the positive things, trying to warp christianity into something it never was.
And look at Jesus as a character. We all know Adam and Eve never existed, so he came to the world to suffer for the symbolic sin of non-existing character and die in the name of... himself? Sounds legit.
User avatar #304 to #177 - spysappinmysasha (02/28/2013) [-]
yeah and its like reverse on the Internet, You want to have a place for yourself? fine, if the internet is doing that for you than all the power to you. HOWEVER, it seems Atheists on the internet are like the religious in real life. You cannot deny that the majority of "Internet Atheists" are condescending ass holes who pounce at every chance they get to bash the religious.

Not saying they are all like that, but a noticable amount of them are. And how are you? we just had a similar conversation earlier.
#314 to #304 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
I won't deny what you say about most Atheists. I've seen them totally bashing religion, and it kind of makes me ashamed. In my opinion at least, being Atheist does not mean a free pass to go "HA UR RELIJUS! UR SO DUM!", just like being religious isn't a free pass to call an atheist a damned soul possessed by Satan or something. Religion has done good things, I won't deny that. I have a number of religious friends, and they're good people. Just because their beliefs differ from mine does not mean I think less of them.

That is why, instead of just complaining about it, I am setting out to make a good name for the Atheists on Funnyjunk, starting by striking up healthy and lively debates and being open minded.

(A little bit off topic, in case it crossed your mind. I chose this username since it's an oxymoron, not as a jab at religion)

As for me? I'm doing alright. I sprained my ankle earlier today and man did that hurt. I'll live though. How are you?

((Pic unrelated, btw. I rarely get the chance to use it))
User avatar #230 to #177 - thesovereigngrave (02/28/2013) [-]
I, personally, am completely fine with atheists until they start attacking people's religious beliefs.

And I don't mean discussing them, I mean maliciously attacking them.
#479 - myhugeballsack (02/28/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#424 - insomniacmeat (02/28/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
[ 463 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)