this post was submitted on
1,553 points (56% like it)
6,614 up votes 5,061 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,181,250 readers

2,629 users here now

Help Atheist Organizations!

Voting is done:

SSA: #47 with 4387 Votes

FBB: #56 with 3162 Votes

CC: #81 with 2248 Votes

Thanks to all who voted! (full results)

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1552
1553

What religious people think they're doing... (imgur.com)

submitted ago by diggro

top 200 commentsshow all 209
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]LuckyCrowbar 103 points104 points ago

Do you believe in magic?

[–]1eejit 48 points49 points ago

I ain't- I ain't talkin about those freaks. They aren't here are they!?

[–]UltraFireBro 39 points40 points ago

I FEAR NO MAN. But... those things... They scare me.

[–]wizzrobe30 21 points22 points ago

Pyro: Incomprehensible sounds of joy

[–]TAW012294 0 points1 point ago

Medic: NO!

dies

[–]abbiistabbii 19 points20 points ago

One shudders to imagine what inhuman thoughts lie behind that mask, what dreams of Chronic and sustained cruelty.

[–]felipec 5 points6 points ago

Quick! Hide yo comics!

[–]xDividedByZer0 -1 points0 points ago

That*

[–]BEZthePEZ 1 point2 points ago

NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! burns building

[–]Tkpwns 1 point2 points ago

One shudders at the thought of what human lies behind that mask of cruelty...

[–]Silos97 26 points27 points ago

In a young girl's heart? How the music can free her whenever it starts.

[–]nermid 16 points17 points ago

It's magic, if the music is groovy. It makes you feel happy, like an old-time movie.

[–]nouChris 9 points10 points ago

One shutters to imagine what inhumane thoughts lie behind that mask..

[–]TheThunderBringer 6 points7 points ago

debated What dreams of chronic can sustain the cruelty!?

[–]Shurikamatana_Nara 3 points4 points ago

I think it's more like "dreams of chronic and sustained cruelty," since "chronic" isn't exactly a noun.

[–]dejaWoot 2 points3 points ago

Don't tell r/trees.

[–]TheThunderBringer 0 points1 point ago

did they ever release an official....text?

[–]feilen 0 points1 point ago

There's subtitles...

[–]ussr577 5 points6 points ago

Repost, Meet Upvote.

[–]sircharles420 0 points1 point ago

In a young girl's heart? Yes..

[–]LoLplayerer 42 points43 points ago

I like the image and caption but I think some of them actually know what they're doing, which makes it all the more sinister.

[–]bored_at_work_89 51 points52 points ago

You can be religious and still do good things...not all people are like that. My parents, who are religious, actually devote a lot of their time and money to charities. They don't go pushing their views on anyone, even their son who has strayed from the church. If you actually think that all religious people are like this you haven't met very many religious people.

[–]ethertrace 31 points32 points ago

Nobody is denying the potential for religious people to do good things (at least, if they did, they would be an idiot), but the picture is critiquing the sad potential religion holds for motivating good people to do evil things while trying to do good. The fight against equal rights for the LGBT community is a perfect example. A lot of people's hearts are in the right place, but they simply have an incorrect view of reality that results in a lot of unnecessary suffering for their fellow human beings. The only reason we can look on at such activities and say "that's bad, stop that!" is because we don't have faith in those same ideas. They think they're fighting to make the world a better place. It's faith that's the problem.

[–]bored_at_work_89 7 points8 points ago

I think not having an open mind is the main problem. I wouldn't say faith is, only blind faith. But I do agree with you and my original post might not have addressed this picture on the exact point it was trying to make, I just get a little defensive when I see post that seem to generalize all religious people doing bad things.

[–]KortoloB 15 points16 points ago

What is the difference between faith and blind faith?

[–]bored_at_work_89 6 points7 points ago

While growing up in the church I was always taught that some things will rattle your beliefs/faith. Ignoring those things is considered blind faith. If you can't question your faith when these things occur you are blindly believing in something. Having faith is something you work towards and not something you just accept and move on and continue believing no matter what.

EDIT: I'm not trying to define the word faith for anyone on here, it was just how I was taught.

[–]KortoloB 6 points7 points ago

some things will rattle your beliefs/faith

I would define faith as believing in something when either there is no evidence for it, or when there's evidence against it (I guess that would be blind faith according to your definition). Both are pretty bad when it comes to epistemology.

[–]bodaciousbilly 0 points1 point ago

And those would be terrible, self-serving definitions.

[–]KortoloB 0 points1 point ago

I didn't say that it was the definition, but it seems like that's what most people mean when they say faith. What are your definitions?

[–]bodaciousbilly 0 points1 point ago

Faith isn't just "belief without evidence." More than anything, it's about trust. You have faith that a friend will come through for you, you have faith in someone's abilities, etc. That's not just the colloquial term, that's what it is.

For instance, if someone doesn't understand particle physics, they'd have to just take scientists at their word. They'd just be assuming they're telling the truth based on faith.

[–]KortoloB 0 points1 point ago

I understand that in everyday life people use the word faith pretty much interchangeably with the word trust. However, usually people tend to have some evidence for those beliefs. "The bus will make a stop at this bus stop in about 5 minutes" or "I have faith that you will succeed!" You could say that these are about trust, but there usually are good reasons to believe these things. For example, the bus schedule tends to be correct based on experience. If the person needed to he/she could even statistically analyze the chance that the bus will arrive at the specified time, but we tend not to do those things regarding trivial topics.

Theological ideas aren't as trivial, and as such they cannot be carried simply by trust. This is where my definition of faith comes in to play. I believe that religious people trust their god, but I have yet to ever be presented with good evidence of him. The fact that they have faith in their God means that they have accepted a proposition without evidence. If they had evidence, they wouldn't need people to have faith (or trust) God in order for them to believe he exists.

[–]RicyRice 1 point2 points ago

Beutifully said.. I would like to have that quoted.

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

Was going to ask this. I do not see how "faith," specifically in a religious context, isn't inherently blind.

[–]ethertrace 0 points1 point ago

I wouldn't say faith is, only blind faith.

I don't really want to get into a semantics argument, but it seems like we're talking about the same thing: believing things upon inadequate evidence and ignoring contrary evidence.

[–]toggaf69 -2 points-1 points ago

actually this picture is just saying that religious people think they're doing good when really they're just destroying shit. don't defend such a retarded image.

[–]VeteranKamikaze 1 point2 points ago

Good religious people are good in spite of their belief in a socially backwards rulebook, not because of it.

[–]Mikeydactyl 5 points6 points ago

If you actually think that all religious people are like this you haven't met very many religious people.

Yeah, that or they have the same generalizations and tunnel-vision that they complain other have. But stereotypes are okay as long as we're talking about people we don't agree with!

[–]WoollyMittens 0 points1 point ago

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to make a good person do bad things.

edit: Congratulation, you're all massively downvoting a paraphrased Steven Weinberg quote.

[–]CowFu 1 point2 points ago

And some really shitty people are so scared of hell that they restrain themselves.

[–]WoollyMittens 1 point2 points ago

Restrain themselves from what though? There's a lot of immoral behaviour that their religion doesn't expressly forbid and there's a lot of perfectly moral behaviour that their religion condemns.

[–]Notathingys 2 points3 points ago

The wrong people must be reading it. Very famous quote. One of my top

[–]bored_at_work_89 -1 points0 points ago

Just so I understand this correctly, what you're saying is that a good person can only do bad things because of religion? I really hope I'm just not understanding you...

[–]WoollyMittens 2 points3 points ago

No, you're reading too much in a whimsical saying.

[–]amnotforcocoa -5 points-4 points ago

It's a shitty quote. Expect downvotes.

[–]WoollyMittens 0 points1 point ago

It's a shitty quote because...?

[–]I-plaey-geetar 1 point2 points ago

I agree. 50 people from my old church went to Haiti last year an are in the process of building an orphanage.

[–]Daygus 4 points5 points ago

whoa man dont bring valve into this

[–]Kyle495 10 points11 points ago

You win again repost.

[–]Tyler_Was_Here 3 points4 points ago

Oh my repost

[–]MinneapolisNick 15 points16 points ago

What atheists on Reddit think they're doing

What atheists on Reddit are actually doing

[–]Kirk__Cameron 5 points6 points ago

Well... with all respect to the people who dislike this subreddit, I think the first picture is somewhat accurate. Atheism is the largest growing demographic in the United States, as well as other developed nations. Many people attribute this to the internet, which gives atheists a place to express their feelings and beliefs without criticism or social suicide. Am I suppose to think that the largest atheist community on the internet has had absolutely 0 to do with these rising numbers?

To make it more accurate, combine the two pictures. Give the fat guy a chainsaw, and while he's trying to cut off the blindfold, he takes off half the guy's face. That's more /r/atheism for you.

[–]camnui 3 points4 points ago

Thats.... disturbingly accurate.

[–]Rekwiiem 12 points13 points ago

perhaps the same could be said of all "isms"

[–]nermid 18 points19 points ago

Pacifism. Go.

EDIT: the amount of intellectual dishonesty around here is shameful. "Pacifism doesn't stop Hitler" has jack all to do with "pacifism doesn't cause harm" and you fucking know it. You can't charge me with burning down a house just because I didn't attack the guy with a flamethrower who burned down a house, and you know it. It's not the same thing, and insisting that it is isn't something you should be proud of.

If you can't separate the moral implications of something from the global implications of its enactment as foreign policy, it's a comment on your mental deficit, not on the thing you're judging.

[–]ibanez5150 7 points8 points ago

Prism. Go.

[–]stupid_parents 4 points5 points ago

Jism. Go.

[–]nermid -2 points-1 points ago

Possibly relevant username.

[–]LordMorbis 13 points14 points ago

At times, violence in the defence of others is necessary and, arguably, morally required. Strict dedication to pacifism in its entirety does not result in improvement in all situations. There will always be those willing to impose their will on others by force, and many times force is the only real defence against those people.

[–]LazyPalpatine 6 points7 points ago

Good, good. Pacifists are a pain to convert to the Dark Side.

You, though. You I could work with.

[–]LordMorbis 3 points4 points ago

Hell, I'm already a Lord. Basically half way there.

That, and some jackass already hijacked my name to the Dark Side.

[–]LazyPalpatine 3 points4 points ago

I like shit that's half-done before I even get there. Tempting you is sounding sweeter and sweeter. Do you already give in to your hatred sometimes? That'd be great.

[–]LordMorbis 2 points3 points ago

I sometimes, inexplicitly, slaughter children and innocents. Is that a bonus?

[–]LazyPalpatine 2 points3 points ago

Oh, man. This is in the bag. Do you have any prior Force use experience?

[–]LordMorbis 2 points3 points ago

Does sometimes, when I am alone, holding out my hand and trying to force pull objects count as experience?

Or waving my hand slightly when I walk through automatic doors?

[–]LazyPalpatine 0 points1 point ago

That depends. Does shit actually move when you do that? Because everybody does that.

[–]nermid -3 points-2 points ago

"Does not result in improvements" =/= "causes harm"

Try again.

[–]iconrunner 6 points7 points ago

Pacifism would not stop Hitler.

At times, force is required to maintain the wellbeing of our fellow man.

[–]nermid 4 points5 points ago

Counter: had Germans been pacifists, Hitler never would have been able to kill 6 million Jews.

The actions of others should not be the primary indicator of the moral value of your actions.

Environmentalism wouldn't have stopped Hitler, either.

[–]Dmayrion 2 points3 points ago

Godwin's Law. I think you may have lost the debate.

[–]ethertrace 7 points8 points ago

No, it's actually a relevant point. Gandhi's solution to Hitler's Final Solution was that the Jews should all commit suicide. I'm serious:

Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.

Pacifism in some situations is simply misguided. It relies ultimately upon empathy, and you may simply be dealing with a psychopath who is incapable of empathy. I'm not saying that Hitler was a psychologically certifiable psychopath, but I don't think need an idealized situation like that is necessary to demonstrate the point either. Plenty of things like nationalism and racism provide sufficient means of dehumanizing others and stripping people of compassion.

[–]iconrunner -2 points-1 points ago

Hitler, Stalin, doesn't matter. My point was that pacifism is not always good.

(And yea, I fell victim to Godwin's Law...)

[–]Faithgrinder 2 points3 points ago

It's an arguable point.

A human being consumes resources by simply existing, so all humans begin at negative value.

So doing nothing is causing harm by default, a human must at least do SOMETHING to try and equalize their own drain.

[–]LordMorbis -1 points0 points ago

By actively refusing to commit to acts of force against those willing to impose their own will on others, they also actively facilitate such people. This has the potential to directly result in the physical, mental and emotional damaging of others. I do not believe that non-violence has the potential to be beneficial in the face of all aggression, and that a steadfast commitment to non-violence will occasionally, even if rarely, result in harm.

[–]nermid 1 point2 points ago

Now, you're arguing that not preventing harm is the same as causing harm.

[–]LordMorbis 0 points1 point ago

Yes, I am. If I have the capacity to prevent harm, however I choose not to, I am facilitating that harm. If my choice of inaction also results in harm, I am also facilitating that harm.

[–]nermid 2 points3 points ago

You have the capacity to house homeless people in your bedroom, therefore you are harming the homeless. You have the capacity to quit paying for the Internet and instead feed homeless people, therefore you are harming them again.

This isn't a reasonable moral stance, as it ultimately requires absolute selflessness as a baseline for morality.

Also, you neglect that causing harm in the service of preventing harm is rather contradictory.

[–]LordMorbis -3 points-2 points ago

You have the capacity to house homeless people in your bedroom, therefore you are harming the homeless. You have the capacity to quit paying for the Internet and instead feed homeless people, therefore you are harming them again.

Ah, but that makes the assumption that I care. I don't mean that facetiously. One of the reasons I hear from the few pacifists I know, for being pacifists, is that they believe that a commitment to non-violence results in more good than harm. I make no claim that my non-action towards the homeless results in an increase to the well-being of society. I wouldn't.

Also, you neglect that causing harm in the service of preventing harm is rather contradictory.

Yes, it is contradictory. However compounded with a belief that the aggressor is at a higher degree of fault than the defence, it can still be ethically acceptable to me to act with force towards that aggressor. If I believe that the actuation of force towards that aggressor is sufficiently beneficial to society, then I believe that I am morally required to act with that force.

[–]nermid 2 points3 points ago

So, you're arguing that pacifism causes harm, but being calloused and unfeeling toward others doesn't? I'm not really following you, here. It seems like you're trying to shift the burden from "doesn't cause harm" to "results in an increase to the well-being of society," which is just dishonest, here.

If I believe that the actuation of force towards that aggressor is sufficiently beneficial to society, then I believe that I am morally required to act with that force.

So, that guy in another thread who punched an atheist in the face for being an atheist was morally required to act with that force if he believes, as many religious people do, that atheism is a harmful aggression against morality, and that actuation of force toward that aggressor would be beneficial to society? Because that's sort of the justification all religious institutions that kill people use.

Like, every single one.

It would seem to me that the judgments of what levels of force are acceptable shouldn't be left to whatever nutball thinks he's the benefactor of society, and that many of the aggressors in harmful situations are morally required to act as they are under your worldview.

[–]Rekwiiem -2 points-1 points ago

if it doesn't result in an improvement what else could it do?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]EddieFrits 2 points3 points ago

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Yeah, Adolf Hitler didn't come up with that.

[–]painperdu 0 points1 point ago

All isms are ideations and by definition does not really exist.

[–]nooby_dooby_doo 0 points1 point ago

FUCKING BABYLON CULTURE.

[–]JTHipster 0 points1 point ago

Atheism.

[–]Jeppesk -2 points-1 points ago

AtheISM? AgnosticISM? I know som of the "isms" are very much like that, and in the original meaning of "ism", it's actually scaringly fitting. But not for the modern-day meaning of "ism"

[–]FoolsShip 2 points3 points ago

Did you really think the above comment wasn't purposely including atheism? That you had to remind us that atheism was an ism? All isms contain delusional people convinced of their own superiority. Your comment is a case in point.

[–]reidzen 0 points1 point ago

The bottom image macro looks like a Fahrenheit 451 scene. What's the top from?

[–]Twilight_Sprinkle 3 points4 points ago

They're both from a video game called Team Fortress 2, specifically this promotional trailer.

[–]reidzen 0 points1 point ago

Cool, thanks!

[–]chaklong -1 points0 points ago

The extremists think they are spreading joy and making the world a better place.

But they are actually fucking shit up, and seem like the scum of society.

[–]BEZthePEZ 2 points3 points ago

BRILLIANT

[–]normalite 4 points5 points ago

Anecdotal: religion comes up probably once a year between me, my family, and coworkers. Occasionally someone will mention they talked to so and so at church but never am i asked to attend...except christmas with my dad. My neighbor is a preacher, when i first bought my house he said i should stop by to check out the service. That was it.

I live in central illinois. My perception is that more often than not, 'religious people' (which i would define as once a month churchgoers) just want to live their life.

I think there is a big gulf in how people perceive the intensity of religious people's fervor.

[–]herebezombies 5 points6 points ago

I live in the deep south. I've had a woman leave her car at a red light to tell me I was going to Hell for listening to death metal.

[–]normalite 1 point2 points ago

Hahahah, what is wrong with people. If there was a god, I'm sure he wouldn't care about music genre.

[–]herebezombies 1 point2 points ago

I don't know but it was fuckin hilarious. I just wish I had it on camera.

[–]TheWhiteeKnight 2 points3 points ago

I wouldn't know. I live in Las Vegas, so there's honestly no hardcore religious people out here, or they're so scarce I haven't come across one yet at least. Although my sister is pretty religious(I don't get how, we grew up in the same house which wasn't really religious at all), I don't think she understands it much, seeing as she went and intentionally got pregnant with a guy she knew for a whole 2 months knowing it wouldn't work out, then went and got "Vegas Baby" tattoo'd under her tattoo of god.. Oh, and they broke up a month after she was pregnant. So many things wrong with that picture.

[–]BardofDale 5 points6 points ago

What you think people will be doing because of your post

What you are doing

[–]CitationX_N7V11C 0 points1 point ago

You could post this as "What I think I'm doing: What I'm really doing." You're just as much as an arrogant jerk as the people you complain about. You think you're special and so much better than those that others have have deemed as evil but you're really not different at all. You're still human and you still fall to basic needs and instincts. But njow you've latched onto something that makes you feel good about yourself. Kind of like the theists that you hate but you can't admit that because you wouldn't be special. You know what?!? I don't care. Being a jerk. Make others follow your ignorant ways. Be a ideological bigot. I don't care. Just leave me alone.

[–]dmoore777 0 points1 point ago

How poignant.

[–]WoollyMittens 1 point2 points ago

That video is hilarious.

[–]Polite_Atheist 1 point2 points ago

I don't think this is really about religious people. Seems more like something someone who's bat-shit crazy would do.

In my experience, religion and retardation aren't necessarily indicative of each other.

[–]ilovemyboom 0 points1 point ago

mmph mmmph mmph!

[–]MarshallLee27 0 points1 point ago

Does anyone else think the pyro is a girl? Kinda like a grown up noodle from the Gorillaz is how i picture it.

[–]solarsavior -1 points0 points ago

You win the Internet today!

[–]oldMonkey -1 points0 points ago

full clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I

I love the unicorns

[–]raping_horsefucker66 0 points1 point ago

And you only see the rainblower through the eyes of a pyro. Genius.

[–]Sweatshop_Owner 0 points1 point ago

I can't believe someone hasn't made the connection sooner...

[–]TheySeeMeDerpinn 0 points1 point ago

Not really. I had to volunteer and these Christian churches were making vehicles for hurricane victims. One vehicle with a ton of showers, another RV with cooking utensils, one with medical supplies, etc. That's probably more than what everyone in this thread has done for society combined. Not saying there isn't negatives to religion, but don't act like it is only a bad thing.

[–]wimi05 0 points1 point ago

Aww, I misread this a hilarious people, not religious and was subsequently quite confused at the picture. Anyways. Onward into the depths of reddit I go.

[–]Blarfles 1 point2 points ago

Huh. Didn't I see this a month ago?

[–]jsenior6 0 points1 point ago

Pyro... RELIGIOUS?????

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[–]LibertariansLOL 0 points1 point ago

SO BRAVE

[–]jessemoforice -1 points0 points ago

Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451.

[–]NK44 1 point2 points ago

You could try to rephrase it as "What religious FUNDIES think they're doing." But aside from that, this pic is completely true.

Also TF2 FTW.

[–]Filan 0 points1 point ago

What are you doing?..

[–]redfox2 -1 points0 points ago

Stop calling them "religious." Any thug who kills another human in the name of religion isn't religious. He's a called a murderer.

[–]keeny1023 0 points1 point ago

thats quite the generalization

[–]dragon4601 0 points1 point ago

Jesus loves you

[–]akallio9000 0 points1 point ago

Well, I wouldn't call Obama god myself, but that's how /r/politics portrays it.

[–]amnotforcocoa 1 point2 points ago

Yea, curse those Christians for creating the first nuclear bomb. Wait a minute...

[–]SevenfoldAvenger 0 points1 point ago

Its thy pyrovision goggles of religion. Rainbows for all the little baby fanatics down below us!

[–]thebbking 1 point2 points ago

And the analogy award goes to...

[–]klanus 0 points1 point ago

ppffft if I was actually doing that I would do a project x party err day

[–]epichotcheese 0 points1 point ago

WOW! Couldn't agreed more!!!! That's exactly what I had in mind as well.

[–]mtbr311 0 points1 point ago

Backburner... CRITS MOTHERFUCKER!!

[–]DamageInq 0 points1 point ago

Jesus Christ this is awesome.

[–]jkayne 0 points1 point ago

Well done

[–]toohipsterforreddit 0 points1 point ago

This picture is perfect.

[–]PascalsLawl 0 points1 point ago

totes repost...

[–]AcolyteRB3 0 points1 point ago

time to watch meet the pyro again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I

[–]MrBubssen 0 points1 point ago

Good one!!

[–]Paralyzing 0 points1 point ago

OH THAT ISN'T GENERALIZING AT ALL

[–]PoliticoPro 0 points1 point ago

I don't think all religious people are the same. I'd say that photo only applies to those that wish to push their beliefs on others.

[–]Jadunka 0 points1 point ago

Yes that is literally ALL religious people!

No. Just...no.

[–]JonWood007 0 points1 point ago

I think I made a topic about this concept soon after meet the pyro came out...it was downvoted if I remember right.

[–]goober1223 0 points1 point ago

That pyro's a Christian!

[–]painperdu -2 points-1 points ago

That graphic is so on spot that I don't mind seeing it over and over.

[–]hollingsworthless -3 points-2 points ago

Is that the cow level?

[–]rezlax 0 points1 point ago

reminds me of Bioshock 2 when you get to see the world through the little sisters' eyes

[–]TheWhiteeKnight 0 points1 point ago

You know.. I've never gotten around to playing that game series. Does it have a continuity? Like do you have to play the first one to understand anything? I've just always been turned off by the fact that you can't change the controls, and you have to use the Y/Triangle button to jump..

[–]rezlax 0 points1 point ago

The second one isn't completely esoteric, but there would be a lot more meaning into everything that is going on. you probably could get away with not having played the first, but it wouldn't be as great a game. that series is honestly one of my favorites. i got used to the controls after a while, but it's only a minor setback in a game series whose make a killing as a book

[–]CosmicDesire 0 points1 point ago

Upvote because Pyro.

[–]EvilBosom -4 points-3 points ago

I mean maybe they do that to the state of scientific literacy, but to say that they all cause shit is just just a poor generalization. I know plenty religious people and atheists alike that volunteer

[–]Strickland_FJ -3 points-2 points ago

Have fun in hell :D God is our savior.

[–]fuckyouthrowback -2 points-1 points ago

Atheists have killed more people than anyone or anything, either natural or man-made, in the history of all humankind.

Religion and the people that follow it can't even begin to compare to the unmitigated evil that godless people have done. Even if the flood mentioned in the old testament was true, my statement would still be correct and I don't think it happened at least not on a global scale.

So....there's that.

[–]nickisahomosapien 0 points1 point ago

Examples?

[–]fuckyouthrowback 0 points1 point ago

Many, but I'll give you one to get started. Stalin.

[–]nickisahomosapien 2 points3 points ago

Do you really think that he killed people because he was an atheist? Do you truly believe that? It wasn't because he wanted to keep any political dissenters quiet?

And don't you dare say that he wouldn't have killed people if he were religious. The Nazis had "God is with us" on their belt buckles and they killed 11 million. So clearly religion isn't too good at keeping people from killing other people.

[–]fuckyouthrowback 1 point2 points ago

Oh I see how it is. When a religious dude kills people, it's because he's religious, but when an Atheist does it, it's for other reasons. Right.

Also if you believe the Nazis were religious, you're dumb. They were into all sorts of stuff. You can go ahead and pick and choose from a variety of things, then decide to make a general statement about it, but that doesn't make it so. The best you could say was that "Nazi" became it's own religion. Like Scientology or Jedi. Fucking roll your own, at best.

[–]nickisahomosapien 2 points3 points ago

If Stalin's soldiers wore belt buckles that said something like "No God can say that I can't kill," or anything that would imply they are justifying what they are doing through their atheism, you might have a valid point. Or even if the Nazi belt buckles didn't have "God is with us" and instead simply had a cross. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case.

How does believing Nazis were religious make me dumb, exactly? I mean, I'm basing my opinions off of historical facts and evidence, here. Would a non-religious person wear a belt buckle that said "God is with us" on it? Hitler's own religiosity is easily disputable, but there is no denying that even if he himself happened to be an atheist, the soldiers under his command and acting out his will were able to do so with a clean conscience because God was with them. It was okay because it's what God wanted.

Now, I got a little off track from the point I was originally trying to make, that Stalin's atheism didn't cause him to kill anyone, which seems to be what you are trying to assert in your original post. The Nazis' Christianity didn't cause them to kill anyone either, however, they were able to use it as a justification. Even if they hadn't been Christians, there still would have been Nazis killing people. They would just have to find a new way to justify it.

[–]fuckyouthrowback -1 points0 points ago

ugh you are hopeless. Nevermind. Go ahead and call it a victory or whatever the fuck you kool-aid drinkers do.

[–]nickisahomosapien 0 points1 point ago

That's a pity. I was really hoping that you would continue. Honestly. If you think you have genuine evidence that Stalin's atheism caused him to kill people, then by all means, present it.

Also... I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "kool-aid drinkers"... Is it some sort of racial slur playing off the stereotype of black people loving kool-aid? Or are you saying I'm a child? If you're going to start throwing around insults, you could at least try to make them a bit... insulting.

[–]fuckyouthrowback 0 points1 point ago

Kool-aid = hive mind. Often used to refer to members of wacko cults, such as the ones that drank poisoned kool-aid so they could go meet the UFO(comet). I think that's where it started.

Fine though, I'll add something. The idea that someone would kill in the name of atheism is preposterous. You might as well say they killed in the name of nothing. Which is actually closer to the truth, except that they killed FOR THEMSELVES, because what else is there?

I've seen tons of people suggest that religion has killed more than anything else. I'm just saying that it's not true as histories biggest killers were godless.(except for themselves...)

[–]nickisahomosapien 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for the kool-aid explanation. I had never heard that expression before.

As for the actual argument, it seemed like you were trying to make a correlation between atheism and killing. I can see now the argument wasn't that atheism has killed the most people, simply atheists have killed the most people. Atheists vs. theists is a very different argument than atheism vs theism, and I do apologize for missing what you were trying to say.

So your claim is atheists have killed more people than theists overall throughout history, if I am not mistaken this time. Here's what I want from you. Numbers. Accurate statistics for both the number of people killed by atheists and the number of people killed by theists through all of history. And then, after you have those statistics, if the numbers say that atheists have killed more people overall, then great. The claim you made is a factual statement, and, after doing a bit of research myself, I''ll concede to the claim that historically, atheists have actually killed more people than theists.

EDIT: As long as we're talking about how Stalin was one of the biggest killers in history, consider the following: Adolf Hitler was responsible for 11 million deaths in his 6 years of power. Joseph Stalin was responsible for 20 million deaths over the course of 25 years in power. So if we look at the numbers, it's sufficient to say that if Hitler had been in power for 25 years and continued killing at the rate he had in his 6 years of power, we get 48 million as the number that we would have killed in total. If not for the Allies and WWII, Hitler would have surpassed the number of people Stalin had killed in half the time it took Stalin to kill his 20 million.

[–]FapFapNinja 0 points1 point ago

Why must you lump all religious people into one group? That's like saying all atheists are assholes.

[–]hapay -2 points-1 points ago

People who belittle religion are just as bad as people who push it on others. Fucking atheist on reddit are most obnoxious humans. Way more annoying then a born again Christian or extremist Muslim.

[–]laminam85 -2 points-1 points ago

Bullshit, I believe in God and I'm smokin a big ass fuckin blunt straight to the fuckin dome!!!!! All you fuckers who think you know what religion is can suck on a big ass sock you cock puppets!!! Come at me and get spanked bitches!!!!

[–]ActuallyAK_Worthy -2 points-1 points ago

Same deal for Atheists

[–]Noobytoe 0 points1 point ago

Oh the irony

[–]UniqueVirtue -5 points-4 points ago

Atheists are the ones that are causing problems since they keep provoking religious people. Stop trying to get a negative reaction out of us.

[–]malicart 2 points3 points ago

Some are jerks yes, but you are a moron, sorry.

[–]NK44 1 point2 points ago

If religious folks (fundies in particular) would just learn to mind their own damn business instead of forcing their agenda and beliefs down everyone else's throats, we wouldn't be having this issue.

[–]wizzrobe30 -1 points0 points ago

Genius.

[–]JaronK -3 points-2 points ago

Yeah, because Jainists are totally fucking shit up out there. Also, those damn UUs, burning everything to the ground.

Protip: Fundamentalist Christians are not the same as "religious people." They're a subset.

[–]Ottermij2 -2 points-1 points ago

Good fucking analogy!

[–]supn9 -5 points-4 points ago

So true! Thanks for sharing this. However, Romans 8:28 stand out to me when seeing this pic. It does take a certain level of common sense, so to speak, when sharing faith with people. Just because they don't believe in Jesus doesn't mean they don't have a sense of hospitality or compassion for example. The best thing I heard about a person who believe in Jesus and who does not, is that the person who does believe in Jesus is saved, and the person who does not isn't.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]supn9 1 point2 points ago

Oh, Ok man.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]FoolsShip 2 points3 points ago

People need to know their place. Those people do not belong here, and it is good that you make a point to tell them that.

[–]Shroom_mole -3 points-2 points ago

Way to generalise billions of people.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 22959 on app-133 running c9c2ee1.