Rank #10022 on SubscribersLevel 334 Comments: Practically Famous
OfflineSend mail to mayormilkman Block mayormilkman Invite mayormilkman to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||6/09/2011|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Content Thumbs:||20487 total, 22334 , 1847|
|Comment Thumbs:||35143 total, 41304 , 6161|
|Content Level Progress:|| 10.1% (101/1000) |
Level 220 Content: Mind Blower → Level 221 Content: Mind Blower
|Comment Level Progress:|| 83.7% (837/1000) |
Level 334 Comments: Practically Famous → Level 335 Comments: Practically Famous
|Times Content Favorited:||1402 times|
|Total Comments Made:||24593|
|Favorite Tags:||chan (13) | fourchan (11) | OC (8) | v (8) | Pokemon (5) | vidya (5) | bizarrocomics (4) | raybingo (4) | X (4) | america (3) | co (3) | comic (3) | image macro (3) | ray bingo (3) | the (3) | and (2) | batman (2) | cap (2) | ever (2) | Gorilla (2)|
"These," he said gravely, "are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant."
latest user's comments
|#148824 - Fun fact: other websites view FunnyJunk as being similar to 9g…||11/27/2013 on Hating - file complaints,...||0|
|#6824010 - Playfilly's wet dream [+] (3 new replies)||11/27/2013 on Old Board. Go to...||+1|
|#148823 - I guess they do rely a bit too much on old/outdated jokes.||11/27/2013 on Hating - file complaints,...||0|
|#3 - Picture||11/27/2013 on oyvey's profile||0|
|#148816 - Those arguments haven't aged well even in the atheist communit…||11/27/2013 on Hating - file complaints,...||+1|
|#148730 - wtf is this **** Anyway, the OP of this content has b… [+] (8 new replies)||11/27/2013 on Hating - file complaints,...||+2|
#148814 - rebornpooper (11/27/2013) [-]
This comment in particular gets me cringing.
>Hitler was a Christian.
Hitler hated Christianity for its roots in Judaism. His private conferences referenced deistic beliefs, while he used Christianity in public to gain popular favor. Not only that, but our fedorafriend doesn't have an answer to Stalin, or maybe even Mao should he be brought up.
>.1% of atheists make up the prison population
Not only does he not account for atheists that convert in prison, but he also fails to account for population sizes and scale. Hell, he assumes that all people who commit crimes are imprisoned, and that all "immoral" acts are illegal.
>93% of the members
If he's refering to the Leuba survey, he's in for a surprise.
"Well, it is a curious survey to have to repeat Leuba's question, because he had a very particular definition of God that may exclude many people. He was asking about belief in sort of a traditional theistic God that would resonate with traditional Jews, Muslims, or Christians. Indeed you might want to call them orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
He received many objections that "this God does not capture my God". He would get people who would write back and say that "I do not believe in any God, but I am deeply religious." He would also get people who said, "Well, I believe in a God that is immanent in nature, and I do not believe that this is a God that you can talk to or who can answer questions. Your question does not capture what I am talking about." -Edward Larson
Pred, you're a disgrace to your atheist brothers, and a disgrace to us irreligious ones in general.
#148847 - Pred (11/27/2013) [-]
Considering majority of this site is Americans, I didn't state that my prison population statement and national academy of sciences statement were related only to the U.S.
(yes I do realize that that article is 16 years old, but I don't think that those numbers have significantly changed even with the addition of option "I believe there is a higher power above all the known perfectly self sufficiently functioning world" to the poll)
My prison population statement seems to be indeed wrong, seems like I have been truly misled by the forces of masses mindlessly following an idea (Which honestly makes me feel uneasy and shamed as that is exactly the thing I oppose) However there seem to be no up to date relevant statistic and I think it would be interesting to see one.
And no, I don't assume that "all people who commit crimes are imprisoned, and that all "immoral" acts are illegal." I assume that portions of all belief groups are imprisoned evenly and that all illegal acts worth imprisoning are also immoral.
According to this article, my views on A.Hitlers religion are also wrong. Well today was really educational. However it's still utterly dumb to use as an argument against atheism. It's like the counter card for Christians for our (apparently wrong) prison population card.
Also, I don't wear fedora ,I'm not your friend and I don't see why I shouldn't have answer for Stalin, when in my comment I even claimed that he indeed were an atheist.
Could you also tell me what exactly is the difference between "atheist brothers" and
"irreligious ones" besides one having roots in Greek and the other in Latin?
With this I'm also apologizing to you for making you cringe and being such a disgrace.
#148869 - rebornpooper (11/27/2013) [-]
Only 54%. That's almost a simple majority.
>that article is 16 years old
Did you just tune out the entire quote attached? The survey re-evaluation was bugged because it targeted a very specific viewpoint of theism. It did not include deism, and even with this factor aside, the results were certainly more in favor of theistic beliefs than the less-than 10% you claimed them to be (a blunt lie on your part).
>I don't assume that
Reviewing your post, this becomes either a red herring point to the attack of immorality (as you assume that both acts are directly correlative by context) or a weak attempt to counter the argument.
>It's utterly dumb to use as an argument
You were the one who brought up the testimonial article and the targeting of a specific fraction of people. You were the one who claimed that atheists are more moral, and set up that a minority of atheists consist of a principal that applies to the rest of the population (appeal to authority, as well as testimonial). You set yourself up for that comparison once you asserted that convicted crime is the same concept as morality. What Stalin did was legal, does that make it morally right? If not, then the entire comparison is moot.
No, you didn't state that "Stalin was an atheist", you claimed a dictator was an atheist in a point that consisted entirely of sarcasm without any context. It's only now that you're directing that sarcasm to refer to Stalin, especially since the differentiation was made after the remark in the sarcasm. Only Hitler was identified in that comment, so if it was a mistake on your end, (and I hate to play this card), then mind your grammar to avoid as huge of a vague pronoun reference.
You really are a disgrace to the irreligious. Don't link me to crackpot atheist sites for source and expect me to take you seriously.
Learn your facts 1st, then come argue on the internet.
#148883 - Pred (11/27/2013) [-]
>54% is a significant majority, given that the rest 46% is divided between all the other countries with access to the internet.
>Yes I read the quote and added my personal opinion on it =/= fact/lie
>assumptions assumptions. I'm simply trying to clarify my viewpoints before you put your words in my mouth. I'm actually open for arguments and willing to change my viewpoints based on newly found facts and my own misinformation which I never denied (perhaps the only part which you didn't notice while so thoroughly, eagerly examining my post)
"You were the one who bro-snip-ted crime is the same concept as morality." Not sure if I understand this correctly (English isn't my 1st language(not even German based)) The laws of a democratic nation put together by its people should resemble a moral code of some sort, thus people imprisoned based on this law should also mostly consist of people with lower moral values set by their nation. Given there is no universal Moral code and there never can be, the law is the only thing I can remotely compare it to.
"What Stalin did was legal, does that make it morally right? If not, then the entire comparison is moot." Yes it does make it perfectly moral... In his eyes. He was a dictator and he set the law. In the eyes of the nations stuck with communism for long years following (such as mine) it obviously wasn't moral, but sadly we the peasants only making up the whole nations population had no word in law making, so obviously the meanings of "Moral code" and "Law" (including things that are legal according to it) were a tiny bit further apart than in a country where people actually do have a word in law making.
The other guy: "If we are gonna play the crime card. Can you guess the belief systems of Hitler and Stalin?.." (2 dictators addressed)
me:" 1 dictator who was a horrible dick happened to be an atheist....
Also Hitler was a Christian..." (2 dictators addressed, but only 1 by name.... who could the other one possibly be???)
#148904 - rebornpooper (11/27/2013) [-]
>54% is a significant majority
I don't know which is funnier, the fact that you brought geography into this by vague wording (which you reasoned with assumptions), or the entire red herring.
Of course you didn't state that. You didn't state any source to your argument, nor did you state any relevance. You simply stated a vague terminology, then threw out numbers pulled from questionable sources.
>not a lie
You're exact wording was "fact that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are godless Atheists", referencing an openly biased source. This is a black-and-white lie, as less than 75% of the members are atheists.
>Typical drivel of "openmindedness" despite the clear bias in referencing, push of a subjective viewpoint (religion v science) being pushed as fact despite questionable status, and reference only to biased sources
>the only thing I can remotely compare it to
No, your comparison is skewed. There are three huge faults with your assumption:
- The NSA can act under legal jurisdiction despite the morally questionable breach in privacy. Abortion is moral depending on viewpoint, and is legal in different geographical locations. All the same, homelessness can occur by perfectly legal means, yet morals state to prevent home foreclosure that occurs. The law acts independent of morality.
- The law does not answer to morality. This is a case of the classic "steal food for starving kids". Legal court cases are decided on the act, not the reasoning. Whenever morality over logic is taken into consideration, this leads to an inconsistent ruling that becomes difficult to enforce.
- Morality does not answer to the law. Criminals prove this by existing. Do you think that bribery is ceased on all occasions on account of the law simply existing? Which do you think Eric McDavid answered to, law or morality?
The funny thing is that I've met atheists who argue that concepts close to an absolute morality existing. You are not smart enough to be one of them.
#148900 - rebornpooper (11/27/2013) [-]
>we the peasants
I certainly hope you're not making an assumption about my identity as an anonymous person on the internet.
>perfectly moral... In his eyes
You assert that criminals are not moral for being convicted, and then you state this gem, logically establishing that the difference in morality of the individual is relevant on power (as both act on "moral in their eyes"), not a personal jurisdiction or belief system that were obtained through upbringing. Congratulations on the appeal to popularity, preaching democratic ideals to someone who wants technocracy!
"oh, 1 dictator who was a horrible dick happened to be an atheist."
This was your exact wording, and the first sentence you used to open your comment.
"1" refers to an ambiguous dictator, one of two mentioned. One of two expanded on.
There was no differentiation in-context. The only hint was a mention of Hitler, who was the only dictator mentioned. Grammatically because of your vague reference, Hitler is the closest reference that occurs. This concept is not that hard to understand once viewed from a neutral angle. However, with the scope of the author, you're presenting an argument that takes advantage of the ignorance that you've forged the argument to have. Though less extreme than, this type of communication technique is similar to stating "It's bad." What's bad? Is your ignorance of how references work bad? Is the immature counter bad? Is the sentence structure of the comment bad? Of course I know which I refer to, but all possible cases listed (especially since the sarcastic tone nullifies the only differentiation, meaning that only one is referenced in the entire paragraph) can apply for elaboration. However, this doesn't change that cocky remark is one that attempted to ridicule the response rather than direct the accusation of the Stalin testimonial. Thus, it provides no answer to it.
Learn your facts 1st, then come argue on the internet.
|#6224 - I've heard that little panda is now a woman.||11/27/2013 on therealsuperderpy's profile||0|
|#16 - I thought you were gay... [+] (1 new reply)||11/27/2013 on Roll for Wizard||+1|
|#13 - Magnets eh? I'll baffle juggalos quite well.||11/27/2013 on Roll for Wizard||0|
|#11 - **mayormilkman rolls 56** [+] (1 new reply)||11/27/2013 on Roll for Wizard||0|