this post was submitted on
643 points (62% like it)
1,566 up votes 923 down votes

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 ›

top 200 commentsshow all 329

[–]SpikeVertical 34 points35 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was waiting for this to correlate to mustaches somehow.

[–]Biomilk 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Two of them didn't have mustaches!

Checkmate, Mustacheists!

[–]a5htr0n 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Most people would say, they weren't REALLY a Christian. Or they weren't REALLY a Muslim.

[–]Shagomir 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The old "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

It's just a strawman.

[–]Teradactyl 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The old Spotlight fallacy

It's just a Red Herring.

[–]snipawolf 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

By just saying this, you are falling victim to what I call the no true TRUE scotsman fallacy, in which the thing in question really does fall outside the scope of the definition.

To substantiate your claim of "No True Scotsman", you must also point out WHY there is a fallacy. Its a fallacy in itself to just assume that there is no connection. For example, if you define a Christian as a follower of Christ, and if you define a follower of Christ as in his own words,

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me."

And you both start with a starting assumption that Hitler didn't change his selfish ways, the Christian would be right in saying that hitler wasn't a true Christian. However, as like any claim, it needs to be substantiated, and definitions need to be agreed upon.

Logic is fun.

[–]Ehack 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree.

One problem when it comes to Holy Books, they have hundreds to thousands of contradictions, so by the principle of explosion, anything thing can be said to be sanctioned or derived from the said book. Therefore we can all be Christians as long as we say we are.

For instance, god says not to kill. God sanctions genocide. God says that you can do whatever if he tells you (and in fact you have to or burn). So Hitler was told by god to cause a world war. ergo, he is a good Christian if he says he is. Or he could cite the bible genocide evidence. Just as easily as a pacifist could cite the do not kill and say they are a good christian.

But yeah, the "no true Scotsman fallacy" is often grossly overused and misused without further substantiating evidence.

[–]Shagomir 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

By saying this, you are falling victim to the pedantic asshole fallacy, in which you have no friends and die alone.

[–]snipawolf 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wasn't meaning that in a elitist way, though I see how it looks. I bothered to type out a reply to your question. I'm not a bad guy. Tone is hard to convey through text, but I don't think I deserve your tone.

I'm just trying to point out that saying it is a fallacy isn't enough, and saying that a thing or person doesn't fit into a category is often a valid objection.

[–]Vire70 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except defining Christianity is an excercise in frustration and pointless failure. No one will agree on exactly what makes a Christian; and even if they all did, working out if someone exactly conforms to that standard is basically not doable in most scenarios.

Just look at the verse you quoted. Without some metaphorical wrangling it is virtually meaningless; if we take it from a literal standpoint then no Christians have existed for at least 2 millenia, seeing as no one can pick up their cross and follow Jesus. He died ages ago. This, like everything else in the bible, requires interpretation. And interpretation leads to the denominational cluster-fuck of modern Christianity. The very idea of people agreeing on what makes a Christian is sort of laughable, beyond the most basic of concepts such as 'believes in Christ', which is something you cannot prove someone does not do.

[–]Caspus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So, to summarize:

Christianity is a massive web of different denominations, each with their own definition of what it takes to be a "Christian."

Anyone they disagree with, or who has different views of what it means to be a Christian, is defined as being "not a TRUE Christian."

Backwards arguments and circular reasoning ensue because, in some groups, the people throwing out these statements might not even qualify as Christians under their own definitions.

... seems logical.

[–]Triassic_Bark 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair, there hasn't been a 'true Christian' since Jesus.

[–]Caspus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As I said, I don't even think by today's standards that Jesus would be a "true Christian."

[–]snipawolf 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That was a result that came up for me after a second of googling. The specific definition itself is besides the point.

What I'm trying to get accross is that in different people's mindsets, words like "Christian" and "Muslim" can mean a huge variety of things. Under their definitions, calling people like Hitler a Christian is unjustified, and these are not crazy-far-out definitions. Either.

Hitler wanted to ignore tradition to restructure the entire church system in Europe to better suit his personal goals. This is totally antithetical to most people's concept of Christianity. To Hitler, the church was a tool. 94% of the population identified as Christian, so it isn't like he could have abolished the church or claimed to bd an atheist. (I'm not saying he was one.)

[–]Triassic_Bark 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"All Scots wear a kilt."

"Billy doesn't wear a kilt."

"Billy isn't a true Scotsman."

"You are using the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy."

"No, Billy is from Ireland."

[–]Shagomir 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Irrelevant argument. You're bad at this.

[–]Triassic_Bark 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You'd like to think so, I'm sure. Go on, then...

[–]meepmorp 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Arguably, Malcolm X wasn't a real Muslim, since NOI is kinda nothing like actual Islam. He did start learning about the real deal at end though.

[–]demoman92 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would say: they weren't really evil.

[–]Johnx014 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have seen this posted atleast 10 times in this subreddit.

[–]trucekill 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm glad somebody's keeping count.

[–]jointsmcdank 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And that was just this month.

[–]aceist 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So true.

Also atheism doesn't correlate with science.

My friend Tony (Catholic): Gets straight As on physics, science, chemistry..etc

Le me (atheist): doesn't like science, prefer leading a life of licentiousness and debauchery, and ingesting hallucinogens to escape reality

[–]ConorMaximus 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]minno 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, because hallucinations are not self-consistent and reality is.

[–]ConorMaximus 57 points58 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]minno 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

OK, you got me.

[–]BUBBA_BOY 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I deem this one the upvoted one.

[–]Frank769 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I verify this everyday.

[–]human_gs 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Really? how are hallucinations not self-consistent? if anything, they are not consistent with reality

[–]deejayalemus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If I`m consistently fucked up, my reality is pretty consistent.

[–]ulber 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This should get you started on correlation.

Also I've understood that atheism and education have been repeatedly shown positively correlated at least in the west (Wikipedia cited some studies, but I haven't read those). Anyway, you should take this with a grain of salt as I'm a computer scientist and this isn't exactly my field.

[–]aceist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks mate, this was very informative.

[–]Big_E_Cock 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you say "le" one more time, I swear, I will hunt you down and do things to you even the internet hasn't heard of yet.

[–]deejayalemus 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That sounds like a pickup line, but I don`t think you mean it that way.

[–]aceist 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm actually French so I have the right.

[–]Big_E_Cock 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We don't take kindly to you frogeaters around here, so you can just geeetouuut!

[–]aceist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We invented atheism, pauvre idiot.

[–]Big_E_Cock 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ron Paul invented atheism, COMMON FUCKING KNOWLEDGE NIGGA!

[–]Br0ski 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You seem to not understand what correlation means. If there is a correlation between two things, then there is some relationship between them, either positive or negative. There is almost always a correlation between things, but usually the question falls into whether it is positive or negative and if it is strongly correlated. In addition, bringing up two examples doesn't say anything about a correlation, because examples where something is the opposite of what you would expect almost always exist.

[–]ConorMaximus 30 points31 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You should also include 'being an atheist doesn't mean your smart'. The amount of atheists on here who act like scientists because they don't believe in god is amazing. Once an argument breaks out they will be the first to quote Hitch and act smug as if they invented the quote themselves.

[–]Fauxtella 53 points54 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

being an atheist doesn't mean your smart.

Point made AND proven in one sentence.

[–]ConorMaximus 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lucky I never claimed such a thing.

[–]BlueParrot 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Appropriate use of grammar is a matter of knowledge, not intelligence. ConorMaximus may well have a high Int score even though his Wis is lacking.

[–]megabiceps 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your logical proofs have a long way to go.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hitches quotes are quite often unanswerable though. His charges against religion have no answer, even for the slyest of apologists. Is it so wrong to see the truth in Hitchens and to repeat it with someone who wants to argue that you are wrong for thinking that religion is not a force for good in the world?

[–]ConorMaximus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't get me wrong I have no problem with people quoting Hitch to prove a point but there are a fair amount of atheists out there who get this sense of elevated intelligence because they don't believe in god and learnt a few good quotes coined by someone else to prove their point.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What should the perceived elevation of intelligence have to do with the validity of what they are saying? It actually seems anti-intellectual to dismiss something someone says, or to automatically agree with what their opponent says, just because you don't like the way you think they think of themselves. How does someone else using Hitch's quotes stop Hitch's quotes from being valid?

[–]ConorMaximus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I never said it stopped his quotes from being valid, I'm just saying its annoying when someone acts like they are some sort of genius because they stopped believeing in god and learnt a few quotes.

[–]DangerousIdeas 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This. I find it irritating when someone feels superior for becoming an atheist and uncovering one truth about life. If religion (when viewed objectively) is easy to pick apart and disprove, then it really shouldn't be an accomplishment if one actually lets go of it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly. I consider myself an intelligent human being, but it wasn't until my junior year of high school that I started to actually think critically about my faith; I wasn't brought up to do that, and I think this is true for many religious people. It's so ingrained in your head that it never occurs to you that hey, you and your parents might be wrong about this. It's a mindset that can't be approached with haughty, condescending facts and quotes - you have to reason kindly and humbly, and be willing to admit that you don't know everything. Saying something along the lines of "hey, I'm not sure about this! Let's look into it together" is hugely satisfying for anyone to hear in a conversation, and your honesty will open people up. This is how I ended up rejecting my faith - someone took the time to talk with me about what I believed instead of turning it into a debate. They took my admittedly charged words and turned them into a conversation in which we actually listened to each other. It's not just a false concept that you're trying to argue out of them - this is a state of mind that they have been brought up with possibly their whole life, and rejecting that is going to take a whole lot more than a rude rage comic - they have to go against everything their family and close friends believes to even start thinking the way you do.

So, yeah. Didn't really to say that much.

tld;dr be kind to everyone, there's more to it than "being logical."

[–]sleepless_knight 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Be excellent to each other...and, party on dudes!

[–]godlessatheist -4 points-3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Martin Luther King didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, he didn't believe in the virgin birth and he didn't believe in the Resurrection. I don't consider him a Christian in the religious sense but maybe more in the moral sense. He rejected Capitalism and the only reason he didn't like Communism was because Communism rejected the moral worth of religion. Also did I mention some of his best friends were Communist atheists?

Source http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/volume_i_29_november_1949_to_15_february_1950/

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can I get a reference for some of those beliefs relating to Christianity? I've never heard that before.

[–]godlessatheist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]leon_zero 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Links? I was always under the impression he was a religious socialist.

[–]godlessatheist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]derpy669 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not sure Malcolm x can be counted as a good guy , he was pretty militant and and massively prejudiced against whites at least in his early years.

[–]pngwn56 43 points44 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Really? Malcom X was the best muslim you could come up with? The violent civil rights leader...

[–]ChicagoRunner 26 points27 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm an atheist but Malcolm X was a great man. Malcolm X became non-violent after his pilgrimage to Mecca. It was Islam which inspired him to be peaceful. Why don't you READ his autobiography before you act like you know things.

seriously, how is this the top comment? fucking ignorant.

EDIIT: yeah, downvote me because I proved you wrong, fuckholes. Why don't you read his fucking book first.

[–]Nexlon 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I like Malcolm X, but I can think WAY better examples of good Muslims.

[–]ChicagoRunner 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe the target audience was Americans? Maybe the creator of this was from the United States and wanted to make it relevant to his or her audience. Maybe since Malcolm X was widely recognized and inspired by Islam to change his ways for one of the greatest causes of the 20th century, his picture should be on this.

[–]Nexlon 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Possibly. The two major Islamic-American faces are probably Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali. I guess because Malcolm X was a political force he's ranked higher.

[–]ChicagoRunner 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, I would say post-pilgrimage Malcolm is the anti-Bin Laden

[–]aceist -2 points-1 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Since you didn't provide any examples, I will name a few:

Cat Stevens, Hakeem the Dream, Kareem Abdul, Mohammad Ali, Ahmad Bradshaw, Busta Rhymes, Ali G, and finally, Mumtaz Othman (my pot dealer).

edit: again, I get downvoted, even though I provided typical examples.. sigh

[–]meepmorp 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ali G. Heh.

[–]ChicagoRunner 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah because nothing contrasts so starkly with Osama Bin Laden like Ahmad fucking Bradshaw or Kareem.

Post-pilgrimage Malcolm is the anti-Bin Laden.

[–]aceist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm talking about class act athletes and artists here, what do they have anything to do with what you just said?

[–]ChicagoRunner 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In the Post it compares stark opposites. Good versus evils. How could Ahmad Bradshaw or Kareem or Ali be the opposite of Bin Laden?

[–]aceist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here's how:

Kareem Abdul - 6 x NBA champion, entertained billions of people

vs

Osamma Bin Landen - KILLED BILLIONS, DESTROYED THE TWO TOWERS

I would say that's a pretty good example of good vs evil

[–]ChicagoRunner 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah because winning 6 NBA championships in a GAME is the equivalent of being a Civil Rights leader.

oH NO! Osama killed people! Good thing we have people who contrast him in the world like 6 time NBA Champions! They entertain us. herp derp he scored a basket clap clap clap

[–]aceist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ok i'm sorry you proved your point.. jeez

have an upvote

[–]nthensome 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You read a whole book?

WOW! You are a great man.

[–]sync4ex 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

fucking ignorant ... fuckholes

Well, gee.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Quite the over-reaction there....

[–]frijole007 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're absolutely right - it's disgusting that people can claim all these things without actually bothering to read the facts before making themselves look ignorant. Well, that's the hivemind for you.

[–]League_of_Nickelodeo -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Basing all your facts off one book eh? We don't take kindly to your types around here.

[–]Zideburnz -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You fucking retard. The more you learn about Malcom X the LESS YOU WILL RESPECT HIM. Holy fuck, it's times like these I miss 4chan.

[–]djm1st 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was just about to say that. How was Malcom X the good guy? He started the Black Panthers essentially.

[–]leon_zero 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who may have been involved in his death, after he renounced violence.

[–]Friedchickenisha 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why are the black panthers inherently bad? Yes they carried guns, so did the police who often came to their neighborhoods and attacked people. The entire reason for their existence in the first place was a type of security for black neighborhoods because no one else would protect them.

[–]NrwhlBcnSmrt-ttck 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And how were the Black Panthers bad, exactly?

[–]thesorrow312 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]adenrules -2 points-1 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just because he was violent doesn't make him a bad person. He also cooled down a lot in his later years.

[–]pngwn56 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just because someone was violent doesn't make him a bad person.

I suppose that would depend on who you would call a neutral person. I set neutral on someone who does nothing. As violence is inherently bad, and Malcom X commited violence, he was a bad person.

Now, MLK was a good person. He devoted himself to the same cause (neutral), but positively applied himself though peacefully protesting (positive being the operative word). He does get himself a little grief for cheating on his wife though....

[–]adenrules 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just because violence is bad doesn't mean that there aren't situations in which it is useful. If you were attacked by someone, would you do nothing and remain a good person, or would you attack them in some way to defend yourself? I wouldn't call you a bad person for defending yourself with violence. I do think peaceful protest is usually better than violence, but that doesn't mean violence doesn't do a good job of getting things done. I wouldn't call the fighters who overthrew Gaddafi or the soldiers who defeated the Third Reich bad people, despite the use of violence to achieve their goals.

[–]pngwn56 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you were attacked by someone, would you do nothing and remain a good person, or would you attack them in some way to defend yourself?

Not if there was a peaceful way of defending myself. In this case, there was. MLK proved it. While we're on the subject, Malcom X was also incredibly racist and hated with a passion anything that he deemed "white."

Fighters who overthrew Gaddafi, and soldiers who defeated the Third Reich had no other option. In those cases, there was no peaceful option. Your analogies are moot.

[–]adenrules 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

After breaking with the Nation of Islam in 1964—saying of his association with it, "I was a zombie then ... pointed in a certain direction and told to march"—and becoming a Sunni Muslim, he disavowed racism and expressed willingness to work with civil rights leaders

I should also add that I think peaceful protest is better than violence, but saying that violence does not have its uses is foolish.

[–]pngwn56 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I did not say violence is completely useless, but in this case, it was.

[–]ChicagoRunner -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why don't you read his autobiography and learn something about the man and his life before you act like you know things? I'm going to bet he was a much better person than you.

[–]noam_thwompsky 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Uhhh I'm confused... You mean people who take religion to an abstract extreme do not correlate with ethics? Isn't the vast majority of most religious texts talking precisely about how ethically one should live? Religion may not follow the majority's standard of ethics at a given time, but it most definitely correlates with an ethical boundary as set by that religion.

[–]dcbriccetti 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, very good. Saying “post-Microsoft Bill Gates” would improve this.

[–]pngwn56 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He wasn't exactly a douche before he left Microsoft. He just became better.

[–]dcbriccetti 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are differing opinions on this, I’m sure. I don’t think most would hold up the Microsoft of the last 30 years or so as a model of ethical behavior. That’s what I’m referring to. Bill Gates lately is doing great things!

[–]DMagnific 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But no true Scottsman errrrr.... I mean Christian would do anything evil!

[–]kadmylos 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

.....but facial hair does?

[–]Blarpblorp 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

2/3 of the good guys wear glasses. I think we're nearing a breakthrough.

[–]jbhak4 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Historically, this has been a problem with religion being cultural. People participate not because they believe it, but because they were brought up in it. As we have become more knowledgeable, we have better exposure to different ideas and there is less passive religion, but there are still isolated cases of people who have their own ideas about their religion. Osama Bin Laden, as an example, thought himself a Muslim, but his idea of Islam was radically different from most Muslims. People rush to say that Osama Bin Laden wasn't a true Muslim, Hitler wasn't a true Christian, etc. because they recognize that the mainstream religion does not condone their actions. In any case, those religions specifically call on their followers to be ethical. That is not to say that their followers do so.

[–]seesharpy 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religion doesn't correlate positively or negatively with ethics.

fixed

[–]stoogebag 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is not what 'correlation' means.

[–]pngwn56 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He's got a point. You can't be "5 ethics, or 7 ethics"

[–]krangles 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Does anyone else notice that every good religious person on this post is American and every evil is not only not American but a former enemy of the US? I'm guessing it's just to appeal to the American majority on reddit...... BUT WHAT IF IT"S NOT!!!!

[–]MexicanAtheism 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, however the majority of religious zealots infringe upon everyone's rights. They're essentially a pestering child advocating their ridiculous "morals" of slavery, adultery, abuse, damnation, murderous intentions. So no I'm not going to stop portraying for what they really are. In fact, we're giving them way too much leverage to spew their trash.

[–]green_marshmallow 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Really? Malcolm X, an american convert, was the only muslim you could think of? You should probably learn a little more about foreign cultures and people. What's the point of posting in a subreddit dedicated to knowledge if you just repost the same image featuring widely referenced historical figures that even a middle schooler knows about

[–]UnknownArchive 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Anyone seeking more info might also check here:

title comnts points age /r/
To end the religion/morality debate 24coms 29pts 3dys atheism
Evil or not evil? 218coms 613pts 20dys atheism
Get over it 15coms 6pts 1mo atheism
Can we all shut up now? 140coms 384pts 3mos pics
Religion does not always correlate with ethics 992coms 750pts 4mos pics
Hey /r/atheism, I made something for you. Hope you guys/gals like it. 1565coms 1181pts 4mos atheism
A friendly reminder 9coms 2pts 1mo atheism

source: karmadecay

[–]Lucifers_Friend 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

fucked up people, do fucked up things.

[–]Zideburnz 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Malcolm X as an example of a good muslim? Oh lordy. I love reddit.

[–]ulber 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Correlate? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[–]ShockedSystem 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So morality is determined by facial hair?

[–]rogersmith25 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This argument is vulnerable to the very common, "No true Scotsman fallacy."

This logical fallacy is an example of the mental gymnastics people will go through to prove their untrue preconceived notions. It states that any counter-example to a rule does not violate it because, by definition, the counter-example would never violate the rule.

In this example, Hitler isn't a "real Christian" because "no true Christian" would ever do what he did.

Though I admit I am guilty of this as well -- "No true scientist would ever deny evolution." But what about that geologist who thinks the world is 6000 years old? "Well he couldn't be a real scientist, because a real scientist would never believe such a thing!"

[–]quantumapoptosi 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've got a problem with defining good and evil. No one does something in the name of evil. I'd say that the good/bad binary is that of monotheistic construction. There are both chaos and order, but each brings about the other. But, something that is purely good, or something that is purely evil can only be observed if you are projecting what that something is into your own ethical understanding. People do things because they think they are the right thing to do, not because they think it is bad.

[–]HotInTheStreets 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Disagree, some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn

[–]quantumapoptosi 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But, are they doing it because they think what they are doing is evil?

[–]gdpt[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for your contribution, I get what you are trying to say, and it's a very interesting point of view.

I believe that this is how people see things too, however, one can be too blind to see what he is doing (blinded by greed, ideals, power, etc.), which doesn't make his point of view (of doing something good) valid.

My understanding, which I believe is pretty universal, is that the ultimate goal in life is to release as much dopamine in people as possible, and limit suffering, and many times, people with 'good' intentions end up doing the opposite. Do you understand what I mean?

[–]quantumapoptosi 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I totally understand where you are coming from, and from that given perspective the image is completely correct. Though, once we get to the point of "evil" is independent of religions, mustn't we consider that it may be independent of any type of philosophy or belief system, rendering it non-existent?

[–]LymphaticHeaddress 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm sorry, but while this isn't technically wrong, it does give the wrong message. The evil people living with religion did the evil things BECAUSE they were religious. The evil people who did things without religion did NOT do what the did in the name of non-religion. There is a HUGE difference. Understand?

[–]bassplayinfool 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is it possible that the "evil" people did "evil" because they are what they are and were able to use religion to justify their actions?

[–]Mitchellonfire 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's possible, but justification should be considered as repugnant as purpose.

None of those non-believers did what they did, and then used non-religion as justification.

[–]bassplayinfool 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"...justification should be considered as repugnant as purpose."

Certainly, but the thing held up as the justification tool isn't that which is "evil". It is only a tool.

"None of those non-believers did what they did, and then used non-religion as justification."

Um... alright. I believe the makes my point for me. Thanks.

[–]thesorrow312 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who would ever perform female genital mutilation if they didn't believe that it was the will of god?

Religion is inherently tribalistic, is promotes an us vs them mentality.

[–]bassplayinfool 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Who would ever perform female genital mutilation if they didn't believe that it was the will of god?"

Why do they have to believe it was the will of god? Why can't they also be great liars on top of being sick folk?

"Religion is inherently tribalistic, is promotes an us vs them mentality."

The human condition is inherently tribalistic, I'm afraid. Religion simply fosters our inherently "us vs. them" attitude. Other things that do this are race, sex, economic prosperity, aesthetics, education level, etc. All of these things promote the mentality because we ourselves, as a race, promote this mentality.

[–]squigs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Plutarco Elías Calles is probably a better example of "evil" atheist, but most people haven;t heard of him.

[–]AntwonCornbread 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I feel like you kind of made the drives and motivations of religious people incredibly simple. Let's be honest here, it's also fairly possible that the religious evil people were just kind of dicks who used religion as way to get away with what ever evil they were doing. I think it's probably a small portion of religious folk that commit an good or evil act solely because they're religious. The point of the post was just to show that there are good and bad theists and atheists, and that we should stop asserting that religious views or lack thereof dictate the morals of any given person.

[–]LymphaticHeaddress 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, it is possible and it is very probable that it does happen. It still doesn't say anything good for religion when evil people realize they can do so much more evil with it. It just makes their job easier.

[–]AntwonCornbread 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I completely agree, but you're treating religions like they're the only causes that have been manipulated for an individual's gain. Any large institution runs the risk of someone manipulating it's original cause in order to further their own ends. To use a tired example of a non-religious cause that has been manipulated; people have promoted communism in order to gain power and have committed incredible atrocities in it's name.

[–]MrBurglar 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Malcolm X, good? Are you fucking kidding me? Get out.

[–]KingMotion 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think Hitchens's quote is pretty apt here:

"Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. If you want a good person to do an evil thing, that takes religion."

[–]Takoulya 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Many things can contribute to a person being good or bad, not just religion. It's just as closed minded to dismiss arguments against anti-religion with a quote as to dismiss arguments against religion with a quote.

[–]KingMotion 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My point being that I agree, people can be bad or good independent of religion. But I also think it's relevant to note that religion can sometimes cause people to do bad under the delusion of doing good.

[–]Takoulya 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Of course, but so can other things as well. Say, for example, I decide that to be able for humans to continue living on the planet, I have to kill 75% of the population or all civilization will eventually collapse on top itself. A noble goal, but the means very drastic. Definitely, religion has far too many delusions in it, but it is worth noting that through different perceptions, many things can appear noble while are actually truly terrible.

[–]ralph-j 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religion is different though, because it has no reality checks. The "proof" happens after death, so it has a unique protection against criticism, questioning and self-correction which no other ideology has.

[–]Takoulya 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not every religion is that extreme, though. Buddhism, for example, provides a very fulfilling life with the goal of self-discovery. If a person uses their own intelligence yet still believes in religion, I find no reason to criticize them. This goes for many physicists who happen to be religious. To be ignorant for calling them stupid is an understatement, simply because with the right mind, it's easy to stay on the good side of things. Yes, religion can distort and delude, but, again, so can many non-religious factors as well.

[–]ralph-j 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So then let's keep all the good things, like community and charity, and chuck all the bad things, like belief in invisible beings and other supernatural nonsense.

[–]thesorrow312 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The point is that if someone subscribes to a religion, and believes it to be the true, unarguable word of god, then it may cause them to do things that we here deem evil, because they believe it is gods word, that they are not allowed to ignore or refuse.

Male and female genital mutilation are examples.

[–]pngwn56 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Never liked that quote. It is too simplistic. It should read (albeit not as poetically)

"Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. If you want a good person to do an evil thing, that takes a various set of social constructs, as well as psychological constructs to a set of beliefs that are either socially or self-enforced ,and that are inherently harmful to others."

But then again, that statement wouldn't have sold as many books then, huh?

[–]Takoulya 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Absolutely. As I was explaining above, religion is but a portion of a social construct. Many things contribute to the mentality of a person living in such a society.

[–]hacksoncode 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, it takes a dogmatic ideology. It's just that most religions have branches that fit that description. This is the same answer when someone retorts "but what about the atheist communists". Yes, what about the communists? Oh? They didn't believe in a god? How nice for them. Only thing good about them.

[–]Frank769 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'd argue that what seems like a bad religious in today's standards could really not be so bad religously-speaking. IDK if you heard the Shafia Trial in Quebec, muslim dude that killed his daughters because of the way they were behaving (being teenagers in Canada) that kill would've been justified in a deeply religious country. The REAL religous people is what we have to be scared of, I have yet to meet any (and I've talked to my share of supposed christians. You don't fit in the guidelines yet you pretend to... sorry, you're not.

[–]bigpoppastevenson 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think that you understand what "correlate" means. Two things can't sometimes correlate.

[–]NrwhlBcnSmrt-ttck 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Um, Bill Gates subjects millions of people to wage-slavery.

[–]komi90 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

lets see, hitler killled "JEWS" religious group

Osama started "jihad" religious war

Stallin, i am pretty sure he didn't go around killing folks cause they weren't atheist

i never liked this pic cause atheist don't start wars because people dont agree with us .now on the other hand religion....well u get the point.

[–]pngwn56 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hitler also killed people who were disabled. Was that religiously motivated too?

[–]rspeirs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your an atheist starting a war on reddit..

[–]komi90 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

last i checked i wasnt shoving ak47s down someones throat. if observing and educating my self and others is war to you, then sir i am a bad mother fucker.

[–]sorunx 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

*you're

[–]mouseparty 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You can tell which people are good and bad in this one by figuring out who is American. Yay, nationalism!

[–]kingoflurk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love how each is identified by their beard or lack thereof. xD

[–]Archer007 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Mustache area and evilness clearly correlate.

[–]Senor_Wilson 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think this post is good, but not great. It's missing some key components.

Instead of a hole, paint one.

First, if you build a birdhouse without a hole in the front, the birds can't get it. I understand that it will be comical and what not, but the birds may get confused and commit suicide.

Since birds like to nest on my roof, they'll be able to nest on the birdhouse roof instead.

Second. I agree, birds enjoy the slanted covers on your home, but a bird house roof would not be big enough to be called home to a bird family. Unless the bird was divorced, or had no kids, the size of the roof would be unacceptable.

Please don't be mean to the birds, they don't understand trolling like us Homo sapiens.

[–]IAMWastingMyTime 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At what point does a post become old enough to post again? Just seems like an easy way to get karma.

[–]PogOtter 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would say religion doesn't correlate with ethics. period.

Talk to any religious person about their beliefs, and shockingly the ones they cherry pick from their chosen holy scripture reflect their own personal ethics. (or at least an idea of what their personal ethics are)

[–]wonka088 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But as for facial hair...

[–]bassplayinfool 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't care for the art's change from "Good vs. Evil" to "Ethical vs. Evil" at the end. It seems like a disingenuous shift.

The wrap-up is "Religion does not always correlate with ethics." A majority of religions popular in the world today attempt to instill ethics into their practitioners, whether those ethics be deigned "good" or "evil" by whomever is doing the defining. As to whether religion correlates to the adherence to any sort of ethical code, it is true that it does not. Clearly, there are great cases for both sides.

Is it a failure of religion to instill those ethics or is it a failure of the person to follow those ethical teachings? Or, alternatively, is it a failure of the society surrounding that religion that warps those messages into something deviant and perverse?

Quite a pickle, that.

[–]burnoutz06 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ugh, easily the 6th time I've seen this. guess that makes me a seasoned reddit veteran now!

[–]r2d2quotes 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fucking love it

[–]Darkstrategy 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Bad people do bad things, only religion makes good people do bad things."

[–]Camnontheist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

but when it does, everyone gets stoned to death at the gate.

[–]Jeeraph 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is posted easily twice a week.

[–]Nincro 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

These points are mute... Terrible Argument, But I agree Religion doesn't ALWAYS correlate with Ethics... But let's see... Martin Luther King and Malcolm x are civil rights leaders which have nothing to do with religion, But good people. Hitler and Osama killed because of there beliefs, Stalin killed for political reasons, and Bill Gates is a Computer Designer who has donated to over 50 billion dollars to multiply charity's.

[–]WoollyMittens 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

[–]thesorrow312 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The people may not be all able to be generalized, but the problem is that religion claims to be the source of morals and ethics. Religion claims to be the authority on such matters, and when it comes to what it does say about such matters, it is not surprisingly barbaric and primitive, seeing as they were written around 2000 years ago. We have had 2000 years of advancements in all sectors of human thought since then. To believe that religious morality and ethics hold up today, is to discount the entire field of philosophy, in which people rationalize their beliefs and defend them, as opposed to claiming a celestial authority and having punishments for non belief.

[–]Beiz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, let's take two bad guys on the atheism comparison and pretend it's equal to the religious comparisons.

[–]ragegage 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's nothing wrong with the point this is making, that religion/non-religion doesn't make you good or bad. Except...........2 things

  1. Religion does make good people bad in some cases.
  2. Malcolm X did great things for African American right's, but was also a racist who inspired riots and violence.

[–]Psychonerd 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's putting it nicely. In Arab world, most religious have usually worst manners, are rude, grumpy (despite prophet saying smile is a good deed), and don't even think of driving near them

[–]ulber 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, if our sample is skewed, e.g., our sample set is {MLK, Stalin} then we certainly can get all kinds of wacky correlations between being atheist and being ethical. In the example we would have a negative correlation. Technically, this does justify the statement "Religion does not always correlate with ethics." However, that is also utterly uninteresting.

What is interesting is the correlation between atheism and being ethical in a large representative sample. For me, the sample would preferably be from some nordic country, but I think any western country would still be very interesting too. Does anyone know of such research?

[–]ashmole 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The worst people, and I mean THE WORST PEOPLE, are those who insist that you cannot be moral without being religious. They're basically saying that the only reason that they're not going on killing sprees is because they don't want to go to hell.

[–]Sugreev2001 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Stalin only wanted to perpetuate his own agenda of establishing a personality cult,like almost all dictators.It had almost nothing to do with his belief in no ultimate creator.

[–]kylebutts 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Malcom X was more chaotic neutral than good

[–]TheHanyo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The atheists didn't do anything IN THE NAME OF atheism.

[–]ChrisQF 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

this will probably get buried but I really need to point out the Hitler was not a Christian per sé, he used Christianity as a means to justify his actions whilst maintaining a quiet loathing of organised religion of any form. Offering conflicting statements to various audiences it is hard to really define what his opinions were; raised to be a member of the church he still broke away from a devout lifestyle very early on. The best quote to summarise (which I'm afraid I've lifted from wikipedia) would be from Goebbels whose opinion was that Hitler was "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian." He believed whatever he wanted to believe, but did not ascribe to the teachings of any particular religion. Richard J. Evans book more directly refutes any claim that Hitler followed a religion as it outlines; "Priests, [Hitler] said, were ‘black bugs’, ‘abortions in cassocks’. Hitler emphasized again and again his belief that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science." regardless, it is unfair to refer to Hitler as a Christian, terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, but the actions of the Nazi party cannot be included.

[–]ace_productions 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

and eating doesn't always correlate with being full.

[–]dgdsbs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not saying anything about religion being good or bad here, I'd just like to point out that this isn't about a correlation. All this shows (if we perfectly accept the evidence) is that the correlation is not "1". That doesn't mean there isn't one.

[–]gigashadowwolf 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You know this actually makes atheists look bad. Bill Gates is a great guy and all but he's no MLK and Stalin's death count is higher than everyone else's combined.

[–]L33T_BEANS 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ethics may or may not correlate with religion but IQ does.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This one has been posted a few times before and Malcolm X wast a very good person from what I have read....

[–]HungarianFever 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Seriously...this has been posted fifty times already.

[–]crackills 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This reminds me of a quote, "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."-- Steven Weinberg

[–]TheLateJC 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who the fuck wrote this? Bill Gates himself? He used to be viewed as one of the most morally devoid people on this rock, and built his fortune through it.

[–]lupin_the_third 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

read ALL the fucking comments, can't believe noone has yet pointed out that stalin was, actually, a drop-out priest (sorta like tom cruise), and was deeply religious until his very death.

[–]satanist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

...however, it DOES correlate with stupidity.

[–]stickmaleboy -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The thing is though, more often than not, those evil actions are inspired by religion, while no evil action can be inspired by atheism, a belief that has no doctrine.

[–]pngwn56 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

However, it could be inspired by anti-theism. While not all atheists are anit-theists, some are.

[–]MasterAndMargarita -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't like the hate on Stalin. Uncle Joe was the man

[–]dablya 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Professor Woland? Is that you?

[–]MasterAndMargarita 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow you had a professor named Woland? Was he the devil?

[–]Labut -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

MLK JR was a notorious adulterer. I don't know if that's the "ideal" christian to make your point with.

[–]lfc1990 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I guess the problem with that is there's no such thing as an ideal human being of any religion. So may as well pick someone.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think r/atheism forgets the part about there being good Christians.

[–]rspeirs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Supposedly they don't exist. So the scientific studies have found

[–]2old2care -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Since when is Bill Gates ethical?

[–]dementedsnake -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know. It's just that most religions encourage bad stuff, even though the people usually ignore it. So it's hard to not speak too broadly. I'm trying to be good about it.