Righteous Path. Good is its own reward.. LIVE A EDDAD LIFE. INTHERE ARE GODS AND TH ARE JUST, NOT . CA RE H ow DEVO LIT THU A i' titani' mijit. icer-: l YOU BAS quote marcus aurelius outlook worldview
Upload
Login or register

Righteous Path

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
Righteous Path. Good is its own reward.. LIVE A EDDAD LIFE. INTHERE ARE GODS AND TH ARE JUST, NOT . CA RE H ow DEVO LIT THU A i' titani' mijit. icer-: l YOU BAS

Good is its own reward.

LIVE A EDDAD LIFE. INTHERE
ARE GODS AND TH ARE
JUST, NOT .
CA RE H ow DEVO LIT THU A i' titani' mijit. icer-: l
YOU BASED ON TH E
VI Rm ES YALI HAVE LIVED BY.
IF THERE ARE ., BUT
THEH.‘ 1’ IDU SHOULD
NOYT WANT TD VA: --_ HIR
TH EM. IF THERE ARE N/ D
GONE, HUT WILL HAVE LP/ ED
...
+852
Views: 34842 Submitted: 04/20/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (176)
[ 176 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#3 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply +47 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
I wish I was illiterate.

- Nero
#1 - princessren
+28 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#5 to #1 - anon id: 19650912
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
every body is agnostic, some people believe they have knowledge over the existence or non existence of supernatural beings. but that just sounds silly to me.
User avatar #59 to #5 - zzforrest
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Actually agnosticism is stating that you are "unsure" of the existence of said supernatural being.
#170 to #59 - lolibear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Agnosticism isn't being "unsure". Agnosticism is not believing in anything, neither the existence of a god, nor the absence of one. We can not know, so we don't try to claim we do. Both are possibilities, even if some are more likely than others.
#9 to #5 - anon id: 1c92595b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
I know what you mean, people who say leprechauns don't exist are silly to me.
#33 to #1 - anon id: eed35852
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
than*
#111 to #1 - anon id: 9876f2ba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Might it be fair to say that to believe in a god that belief must be active. being unsure and calling yourself agnostic is passive. Since it isn't active, you don't believe, so you are an atheist.
#165 to #111 - lolibear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Agnosticism isn't being "unsure". People like to use it as a way to avoid the stigma of atheism, but that's not what it means. not believing in something is not the same as atheism. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Theists BELIEVE there is a god. Agnostics do not BELIEVE anything. We simply accept that there is a possibility of either, *some are more probable than others of course* and trying to claim you know either is both vain, and ignorant of how learning works.
User avatar #154 to #1 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Being agnostic and atheistic aren't mutually exclusive.
User avatar #2 to #1 - atrocitustheking [OP]
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
Perhaps, but I figured some on that board might appreciate it.
#114 - comentator
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
User avatar #190 to #114 - atrocitustheking [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Ah, I have that picture myself. Personal favorite of mine.
#24 - bobebob
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
Great now i have to go watch Gladiator again
i don't care its a god movie
User avatar #32 to #24 - Einsty
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
Any excuse is a good excuse.
That movie is epic.
User avatar #43 to #24 - kjelli
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
"its a god movie"

no, its the godest
User avatar #108 to #24 - studbeefpile
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
"My name is Gluteus Maximus, are you not entertained!"
#116 to #24 - proxyfag
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#92 - biggrand
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
**biggrand rolled a random image posted in comment #59 at Has science gone too far? **

the real god
User avatar #99 to #92 - codyxvasco
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
This picture made me choke on my own tongue.
#41 - teamrocketninja
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I have one problem with this. If there are gods, and they are unjust, if you dont worship them, doesnt that pretty much mean you're ******?
#104 to #41 - anon id: d8855633
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Pascal's Wager Mofos.
User avatar #44 to #41 - Nightinear **User deleted account**
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
But if you worship them it would be like worshipping douchebags and assholes
Would you do that?
User avatar #46 to #44 - teamrocketninja
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
True. But. But, we are talking about an all powerful being here. Wouldnt it be better to worship a such a being than to not do so and risk damnation or whatever? Its just a problem Ive always had with this quote.
User avatar #50 to #46 - Nightinear **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I've already trouble worshipping anything
If I knew the being was unjust, I wouldn't know what would condemn me, so in theory, I would already go to hell or whatever it would be
So why keep worshipping it?
User avatar #51 to #50 - teamrocketninja
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
But wouldnt completely abandoning serving said being be a guarantee of punishment? At least the other way, you might have a chance at escape.
User avatar #52 to #51 - Nightinear **User deleted account**
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Might have, sounds like some sucky odds
And if the being is unjust, wouldn't it be like a devil or some other kind of evil thing?
And worshipping him would only bring you to a hell-like place?
User avatar #53 to #52 - teamrocketninja
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Not necessarily. I think the post is hinting at an all powerful universe ruling being, rather than a devil or so. Unjust does not necessarily mean completely evil. And yes, they probably are sucky odds, but a slim chance would be better than none.
User avatar #55 to #53 - Nightinear **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
But with if the being is unjust, there would also be a chance of it being and evil being
User avatar #56 to #55 - teamrocketninja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Quite likely, yes. But even an evil being could reward its followers.
#63 to #56 - keroberios
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I see your thought pattern but I would like to propose a scenario for you.
There is an unjust god. The god makes contact with you and offers you two choices. Kill your entire family and everyone you know. Or don't.
Killing your family will reward you after your death. Supposedly. If the god actually manages to reward you at all.
Not killing them will result in your hands being tied to you ankles, your body twisted backwards, wrapped around a barrel, and rolled down an endless hill for eternity.
So the god says, at least.
What do you do?

This is the issue with following "unjust" Gods. Do you do what most call immoral things, simly to garner rewards after death. Or do you stick to the moral path and do good things throughout your life in the hopes that by not selecting a single path of the many gods offered to society, if there is a single god or pantheon of gods, it/they is/are truly just and will alow you passage to the supposed better of two afterlives.
If there is no god, then you will die knowing you led a good life and fade into the eternal void. And finally if there is/are unjust god/s then you can face eternal struggle knowing that as far as you are concerned, you led your life the way you saw fit.

I would personally rather be tortured for being a good person, as opposed to hoping I've picked the right path and been a "good little religious boy" according to their arbitrary standards.
User avatar #64 to #63 - teamrocketninja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
If the god offered me the two choices, and I actually had proof of there being a god, Id probably do what he said.
#65 to #64 - keroberios
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
And if you'd just read it in the most recent book-o-religion you'd picked up?
User avatar #66 to #65 - teamrocketninja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Then I would, of course, take it with a grain of salt, as they say. But for the sake of this topic, we are assuming that there is a god and we can know what he wants, correct?
#67 to #66 - keroberios
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Haha, no. We're talking realisitcly. If there was a real, truly known god and we knew what he wanted we would be little more than puppets on strings doing his bidding, no matter the reason in order to garner favour and win out in the end.
In the real world, you have a different religion in every direction and they all tell you to do different things. Some tell you to do immoral things. Others tell you to do moral things. Although these morals are attributed as similar to the ones we hold to this day.
To the Aztechs, it would have been immoral NOT to sacrafice, you see.
Back on track though. Is it better to wade through all of the religions, pick one, and hope that you have picked the proper one. And given most modern religions, it is a very bad idea to pick the wrong one. False idols and so on. But to pick one and follow all of the rules in hopes that by doing so you will be rewarded upon death.
Or is it better to live a good life.
If you live a good life you'd be satisfied with leaving behind. A truly just god would erward you for your virtues. And if there is no god, you will have merely rewarded youself with the satisfaction of having been a virtuous person.
As the old saying goes. "Virtue is its own reward."
User avatar #45 to #41 - marlkarxthethird
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
But if they are unjust, even if you DO worship them, you may be ******. That's the point. Worship them or not, they'll do what they will with you, so living your life according to their guidelines is pointless.

Better to live morally without fear of a god or gods than to follow the mad laws of an unjust god.

That's what he's saying.

Well, that's the gist of it. Frankly you could write an essay solely on interpreting this saying.
#80 to #45 - anon id: 1ddf6c7c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
but if you do worship such "unjust" gods and accept them into your life then why would they hold any grudge against you
let's use christianity for example, God knows we are sinners. and we are but he won't reject us if we hand over our dedication to him through loyalty.
And don't you think that'd be at least granted, given he gave his perfect son for the sins of the World?
I see it as the most noble act a father can do for his people.
User avatar #167 to #80 - marlkarxthethird
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

The latter half of your argument seems like "You're wrong because Jesus" and I can't accept that as a plausible counter-argument.
User avatar #48 to #45 - teamrocketninja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
You make a very good point, but wouldnt worshiping or serving this unjust god be better than not? I mean, not doing so is pretty much guaranteed hell, so at least that way you have a chance.
User avatar #60 to #48 - marlkarxthethird
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
That depends. Are you willing to commit atrocities in life just to gain some measure of comfort in an afterlife you don't know exists, all in the name of a god who may not honour his part of the bargain, if he is even real?

A tangent, if you'll allow me one. The Aztecs offered human sacrifices to appease their gods, but according to Christian mythology, they all would have gone to hell (though the righteous would have been saved by Christ in the harrowing, apparently). This raises a number questions: who is right? Who is wrong? Can you live according to both or all religions? If not, do you not risk divine retribution from any of the religions you choose not to follow? Assuming all religions have an afterlife (which they don't), and that all of those afterlives consist of a rewarding part and a punitive part (which they don't), by only following one religion, you risk hell in all of the others.

Marcus Aurelius' philosophy addresses this conundrum. If, rather than choosing to believe in one god or another, you choose to live a moral life, according to your good conscience, you improve your chances significantly. If there is one god or a pantheon of gods and they pass fair judgement, then you will fall in their favour with your acts. If that same god or group of gods does not judge fairly, then your actions will not have mattered in the same way, as their process of judgement may well be arbitrary. If there are no gods, then by living well you have left a good impression on those who met you and have left a better world rather than a worse one for following the ravings of some cult or behaving as a madman or a selfish prick.

In summary, it's not about having a chance. It's about living with yourself knowing that what you believe may well be false and that your deeds may not count toward some judgement toward passing into an afterlife. It's about conducting yourself in a way that a good deity would admire, as would your peers, despite your fate after death..
#61 to #60 - keroberios
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Thank you for summarising my exact tghought pattern so that I did not have to type it myself. You need more thumbs, here, have mine.
User avatar #4 - imasillyginger
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
I've always loved this. It was the first quote I ever put on my BaceFook page and I have it on a big poster-board in my room. One thumb
#19 to #4 - bbzz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
**** that person who liked, literally.
#136 - joethebeast
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
User avatar #47 - fazermint
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Any religious person who can answer this?:

What does god win by you believing in him? Why does he need you to do that so badly that if you don't, he'll send you to hell?

Aw hell no, this bitch didn't believe in me! To hell with you!... Is god a 5-year old emotional girl?
User avatar #58 to #47 - zzforrest
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I'm not religious but I do know that "universal salvation" a.k.a. "nobody goes to hell" is becoming popular.
User avatar #68 to #47 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I'm not religious, but I think I can answer as a Christian might.

Heaven is the domain of God, and was never intended for humans, because after the Garden of Eden fiasco it turned out humans were inherently sinful and impure, and therefore unworthy of Heaven. They would all go to Hell by default.

However, eventually God showed mercy to the humans by sending his son Jesus (a physical incarnation of himself) to Earth in order to die for the sins of us humans, i.e. to suffer the punishment intended for us. This ensured that humans were able to reach Heaven by accepting Jesus' offer to pay for our sins, the sacrifice that he made to save us.
"Choosing" not to accept the Christ as our savior means we will continue on our default path to Hell, which is evidently what we really deserve.

That is the typical Christian perspective as I understand it. Other religions will give different answers.
#71 to #68 - anon id: bb579322
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I think the story of Adam and eve was created to show us our free agency how we can choose to fallow or not. To show us we are not all robots on an Assembly line. Also to show us our mortality.
User avatar #74 to #71 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I'm sure that the story has many morals and implications.
The concept of Original Sin is the most prominent, though - humans are inherently tainted.
User avatar #69 to #68 - trollofhalo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Or, you know, he could have traveled 1990 years in the future and took Led Zeppelins idea of a stairway to heaven. But no, he want to do **** the tough way.
User avatar #72 to #47 - jokeface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
He wants us to love Him. Everybody wants to be loved. Even God. And for Him, true love means believing in Him against all odds.
User avatar #126 to #72 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I'm not sure if I want to take that step.
Can we just be friends?
User avatar #127 to #126 - jokeface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
As long as you believe in Him.
User avatar #130 to #127 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I don't want him to assume we're in love though.
That might make it awkward when I ask Buddha to the beach.
User avatar #131 to #130 - jokeface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Jesus is okay with you asking Buddha to the beach as long as you invite Him too. He likes Buddha, but He doesn't trust you alone with him.
User avatar #78 to #47 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
according to theology, the reason we exist is so that we can spend eternity in fellowship with God.

God, however, gave us freewill and let us choose which path to take

personally, I don't think freewill can exist in combination with omniscience, so I find this paradoxical. I'm an agnostic atheist, my father is a protestant pastor, and we've had discussions about this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

User avatar #125 to #78 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
God sounds like a douche then.

I mean, you don't have a child, so that the child dedicates its life to you.
User avatar #174 to #125 - coolcalx
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
then you're severely misunderstanding the theological stance.

God doesn't want you to dedicate you to himself, he wants to have fellowship with you and all others who acknowledge him as their creator.
User avatar #179 to #174 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
And why...(when he has given me absolutely no sign of his existence)...would he condemn me for not acknowledging him?


It's like if a girl from across the cafeteria came over and slapped you, saying "I've been checking you out from across the room for weeks! Why haven't you asked me out?"
User avatar #183 to #179 - coolcalx
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
because we've all "sinned"

in essence, we all deserve to be in hell, because we're all assholes.
User avatar #184 to #183 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
That's a stupid way to think.
#185 to #184 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#83 to #47 - anon id: 1ddf6c7c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
By believing in him he gives the person a spot in his home, Heaven
And yes hell awaits those who do not repent their sins before Judgement day. God is not a 5-year old emotional girl, by the way.
User avatar #123 to #83 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
That isn't an answer to the question.
User avatar #145 to #47 - darknesincontrol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Being so powerful as he is, he doesnt gain anything that he cant simply create.
Though you can argue, its was to maintain order, and to keep people from abanddon the religion. (This might be offensive for some, sorry....)
User avatar #10 - mayormilkman
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
Too bad he never said that. As for the quote itself, mmmmkay.
User avatar #12 to #10 - cfeet
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
"Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius. Book 2 meditation 11.
This is just a different translation of the meditation than what other editors may have published.
#20 to #12 - tommythek
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
But in the book it's immediately followed by him stating there are gods, this quote (paraphrase?) is taken out of context. It's just like when creationists quote Darwin on how it goes against common sense that something as complex as an eye could have formed through evolution, but leave out the part where he says a lot of things we've proven to be true through science seem to go against common sense at first.

I believe that the quote OP posted is a good quote in itself, but should stand upon its own words, not given any extra authority by saying it was from a philosopher (since it wasn't).

Perhaps I've gone on a bit too long, but I just get kind of annoyed because this picture shows up on r//atheism every other week and it's annoying seeing everyone just accepting it to be a true quote without questioning it.
User avatar #38 to #20 - sheepysquirrel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Are you saying that if you believe in a god you have to say that there are in any given situation?
That's what I got from your first few sentences.
The whole thing is giving you choice, it's not saying you HAVE to or DON'T have to believe. It's saying that regardless, you should live a good life.
#181 to #38 - tommythek
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
No, I'm not. In Meditations, after he said what was similar to what's posted here, he _ immediately_ goes on to say that we don't have to worry about what he just said because there are gods. It's not a matter of always saying you believe in god if you do, it's about taking a quote out of context, which I'm against.

Here is the actual quote, which is a lot different than what is posted:

Undertake each action as one aware he may next moment depart out of life. To depart from men, if there be really Gods, can have nothing terrible in it. The Gods will involve you in no evil. If there are no Gods, or, if they have no regard to human affairs, why should I desire to live in a world without Gods, and without providence? But Gods there are, undoubtedly, and they regard human affairs; and have put it wholly in our power, that we should not fall into what is truly evil.

Way different than the message given in the picture.
User avatar #187 to #181 - sheepysquirrel
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Yes...yes...that is way different. Ok thanks for clearing it up.
#189 to #187 - tommythek
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
No problem
User avatar #21 to #20 - cfeet
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
In regards to your image; I simply gave sauce on the meditation, I didn't really post a theory. Although it's Death Note, so it's okay.

I actually agree with you though. The quote is often taken out of context. However, Marcus' meditations aren't really written in context. They're simply his thoughts being written down at a certain time; like a journal. It's wrong for people to blindly accept things Marcus said because he often didn't agree with them himself, which is seen throughout his meditations. I also agree that this quote is posted way to often in regards to atheism when it (as comment 1 states) takes a more agnostic stand point on the subject. To me it sounds more like Marcus is trying to convince himself that it's better for him to focus on being a good person than worrying to much on the idea of "heaven and hell". He was the ruler of the known world after all and had a lot of issues to deal with everyday.

tl;dr I agree with your comment.
User avatar #14 to #12 - mayormilkman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
"Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?"

They don't have quite the same meaning.
User avatar #16 to #14 - maddboiy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
in the version i've got it says pretty much the same as the post, there are many different interpretations and translations
User avatar #15 to #14 - cfeet
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2013) [-]
I suppose it just depends on how one interprets it.
That's the beauty of literature.