What does this mean though? How does just reading some random story get you put in jail? It’s like you read their comment and them completely ignored everything it said.
The reason I hate online atheists is because they just make it a personality trait to think that everyone who follows a religion is stupid and that all religion and religious books are bad.
Obviously people don’t read the bible and do everything instructed in it. Christians don’t follow the old testament even though it says not to eat pigs and is a book in their religion.
Recently on this subreddit someone told me that he knew of a very smart scientist who believed in God and then told me that his beliefs are just outside his area of expertise. Later that same person told me that a degree in Theology is a degree in useless make believe or something along those lines. Then what exactly makes someone an expert on religious beliefs. Because according to this person it’s not a theologist and it’s not someone who follows a religion. So from what I can tell, this athiesm poster meant that to be an expert on religion and knowing who or what God may or may not be, is to believe exactly as they believe.
Hypocrisy at it’s finest. Online atheists may have logically sound arguments, a lot of the times their arguments are flawed. I just want to emphasise to anyone who may be reading this, that atheism is a belief like any other, it is not fact, and it is not science, it is a belief. So do not try to force your belief on others or give them an essay on why they are stupid for believing in a god. It just makes you an asshole.
So you would read some random story and just act it out as written? Say I turn to the story of Job in the bible, what am I supposed to act out there? Am I supposed to pretend to be Satan and destroy the fuck out of Job? Am I supposed to be God and allow someone else to destroy Job’s life? Or am I supposed to be Job and just hope that everything that happened to him also happens to me?
An online athiest in my eyes, is no ordinary athiest, but someone who goes online to forums and “discusses athiesm” but in reality just makes fun of people who follow a religion. You can be someone who goes online and is an athiest, that doesn’t make someone an online athiest, you can even go on forums and discuss athiesm if you so please, you are still not an online athiest. An ‘online athiest’ is someone who specifically goes online to poke fun at people who don’t think how they think. It’s not kind and I won’t stand for it.
Your last paragraph really describes what makes an ‘online athiest’ as I call them, I can’t really think of a better word. It’s basically someone who is an asshole and uses athiesm as an excuse for their assholery.
Sometimes a Jehovahs Witness will knock on your door, and you can just tell them you aren’t interested thanks.
Obviously what they believe isn’t true, but that doesn’t make them assholes. If someone genuinely believes that them knocking on your door and talking to you could actually save your soul in the afterlife, I won’t ever count that as bothering me. It can be annoying sometimes, but that’s usually because I’m already in a bad mood and not the fault of the door knocker.
There is not, and likely cannot, be an experiment which proves the speed of light to be the fastest anything can travel in the universe. Yet scientists don’t take it to mean that the previous statement can’t possibly be true.
There are many things in science which cannot be proven to be true, that doesn’t make those things automatically false.
This is a very good point that I completely missed, lack of belief is really a default which is what atheism is, or what agnostic athiesm is.
The chances of any religion on earth being close to correct are unbelievably small if at all. So to follow a religion at all will almost certainly not be following the most truest of truths. My problem is with people who take this fair and reasonable viewpoint, and morph it into hatred for people who do choose to believe in a religion. Sometimes it’s nice to believe in what probably isn’t true, that doesn’t make that person stupid or oblivious.
I really chose a bad term ‘online athiest’, I meant it more like who the term ‘average redditor’ describes vs who the factual average redditor would be. It may be misleading, but I’m not very good at coming up with names for things.
Ultimately my comment was directed at the author of this post, which says to take a book, that is over a thousand years old and do whatever is in it. The author of the post is what I’d call an ‘online athiest’ because they use the guise of athiesm to just post stupid drivel about a book I’m sure they have never read.
Good comment, maybe it depends how you define pushing views, most religious people I’ve met have maybe spoke about how their personal views affect them but I’ve never met anyone who tried to push their views on me. Maybe I’ve just not met enough people.
How is that arguing in bad faith. You just made a rather witty hut ultimately meaningless reply to my comment. You said “Yeah, quite a bit of the Bible would get you landed in jail”, but the comment you were replying to talked about how this point wasn’t true. And your reply to their comment was essentially: Yeah whatever, but here’s what you just disproved but I’ve restated it.
How do you act out a random page in the bible, like the top comment here said, it’s mostly stories and histories wrote down. So when they reply saying that most of the bible would land you in jail, what does that mean? Does that mean if I copied out the stories that are likely false in the bible, most of which happened 2000 years ago or older. My point is, how do you act that out? How do you act out most of the bible because most of it requires a divine interference. You can’t just copy it out because it’s a story, in the same way I can’t wave a magic wand and shout expeliamus and throw magic at them.
I myself am guilty of having been an ‘online athiest’, everyone does it, and we do let our personal biases get in the way of that. All I want, and I’m sure all anybody wants is for people to just respect each other and be kind, and it isn’t always easy, especially when no matter how hard you try there will be people who won’t reflect on themselves.
But for someone to see error in the ways of their past and try to change, no matter how successful they are, that’s all that matters. If everyone tried to be kind and understanding we’d all be better off for it.
Thanks for your comment, it’s great to hear your story :)
Good point, to act on others in a way that most would deem unethical and unkind and use the excuse of religion to do these actions is terrible. Although I’m sure those who did these things you have given as examples didn’t end up in the good afterlife if there is one.
I’m not sure what a solution for this problem would be.
Good comment, always interesting to hear about physics. And I agree with your definition of science. I think my comment was a rather weak argument to begin with.
Interesting, I agree with you, my comment was a particularly weak argument. I think the problem with disproving or proving that a god exists, lies with the fact that they/it would presumably lie outside of our universe. And from what we think now we won’t ever be able to escape our universe. Everything that Science says should exist or does exist, lies within our Universe, and we can’t say what lies outside it, and we won’t ever be able to. Which makes the topic of a creator especially difficult to prove/disprove. Following that, I personally still believe that someone who asserts that there is no creator holds it as a belief rather than a fact, although someone else pointed out to me earlier that absence of belief could be called the default. I personally believe that we can’t ever know whether there exists a creator or not, it’s my belief. In my eyes, everything regarding a creator is a belief, because again, I don’t think it’s a thing that is possible to prove or disprove.
Sorry for the hostility of my earlier comments, I just got carried away, I hope you can understand how that is.
I’m sorry to say that I’m lost on which post you are referring to.
From what I understand, the original post is an image that says, open a random bible page, do exactly what it says and the last person to end up in jail wins.
But as the top comment, under which this reply exists, states, if you turned to a random page in the bible you would be unlikely to land on a page which explicitly gives instruction. Which means to me, that you would not be able to turn to a random page and do exactly as stated because you would likely be reading some random story. And obviously the act of reading the story isn’t what I’m talking about, but to act out this story seems difficult, since quite a few of the stories in the bible talk about God or someone divine interfering. How could you act out a divine intervention? You would end up in jail, but not for committing a crime as is implied, however for being a Don Quixoteesque mad man who is acting out stories from the bible.
I simply don’t understand how this post can be anything other than slander directed at christianity snd the bible, because it’s clear to me that it isn’t possible to act out most stories in the bible. And what’s more, this post, to me, gives off the idea that people who follow christianity must be completely oblivious to the fact that it’s an ancient book and that they must follow everything written in it like it’s their own biological code.
But if this isn’t what you gather from this post, would you please explain your viewpoint because I am rather confused.
Yes, I think that everyone must be at least somewhat agnostic, because I think it is human nature to question the logic in what they are told, provided they have the mental capacity to question things (by this I mean as ling as they aren’t a child or mentally developmentally challenged).
Is my point not valid, that ultimately you cannot go into the bible pick a random page and act it out, it’s physically not possible for a large amount of pages.
You didn’t even attempt to correct my view although I asked you to explain it if your viewpoint was any different. I genuinely want to know how you see this post if you understand it differently to how I do. Because to me, my understanding is the only one that can logically be drawn from this post.
If you do not want to explain yourself to me then fine, make your single sentence reply that contains 10-20 words saying nothing at all. I gave you everything that I was seeing and you give me “you bad” in return. There is no point in trying to find out more from someone who acts this way.
Look, I love having a blu ray player embedded into my console. But the fact of the matter is, a lot of these consoles have decently high end blu ray players in, and they are expensive. Consider the fact that low end consoles such as Xbox Series S are probably losing money for every sale. Asking them to tack on another feature means they either increase the price of the console or lose even more money on every console sale.
You should have the option to select a digital or a disc version of a console. Maybe even be able to pay extra to upgrade the blu ray player inside your console to a higher quality or more capable one for those who want them.
For example on omegle…just put it on the Christian tag and let it run. I aint good at AI coding to create that, but i would host it for free so it can run 24/7...
As long as what someone believes doesn’t affect anyone else, what does it matter? Why try and disprove or find logical flaws in someone else’s beliefs?
I couldn’t think of a single benefit to this idea. It just reeks of self superiority.
You clearly believe you are smarter than anyone who believes in any religion ever? You know there are lots and lots of religious people who also live and appreciate the modern world right? Being religious doesn’t mean you must hate gay people and you must hate people who don’t think like how you think.
You clearly have some very deep prejudice against people who believe in religion and I imagine that you feel very smart and superior to someone who goes to church once a week.
I would rather have a friend that is a christian or a muslim, a hindu or a jew, who also believes in things that are modern and western like acceptance of people of all faiths and sexualities. Than someone like you who judges others based on what you think they must be like.
You have quite literally stereotyped every religious person ever. Although it’s clear you are directing your ridiculous comment at Christianity.
Also I’m not religious, I don’t go to any kind of church, mosque or temple. Yet I do believe it’s right for me yo stand up for the beliefs of others, even if they do not reflect my own.
Every point in my comment holds true, no matter what snarky replies you make. Because the fact of the matter is, you are prejudiced against people who follow a religion. And that is an unbelievably bad trait to have.
But who am I to say, maybe you have a degree in theology? But for some reason, I seriously doubt it.
Having a degree in theology means you understand religion and where it comes from, what the differences between religions and beliefs are and how they affect the world. Studying theology is like studying anthropology. You may learn to read ancient languages in order to be able to understand texts that are thousands of years old.
It’s difficult to comprehend that you can’t see the problem with your ‘points’, that being that you are extremely biased against any other belief that isn’t your own. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
Christian roulette (feddit.de)
GameStop Boss Says Disc Drives Should Be Required On Game Consoles (www.gamespot.com)
"It would be great if people had to buy more of the thing," says guy who makes money selling the thing.
Can someone Please create an AI that deindoctrinates Christians on chat platforms?
For example on omegle…just put it on the Christian tag and let it run. I aint good at AI coding to create that, but i would host it for free so it can run 24/7...