Christians vs Vegetarians (NSFW)

[spoonitnow]

I am asking FTR to settle something that I have been torn on forever. Which are worse: Christians or Vegetarians?


Argument against Christians:

You think god is in control here, haha? I am in control. I’ve been in control since the ’50s in case you haven’t noticed, haha. You 3 faggots are going on stage [Jonas Brothers], and you 3 faggots [South Park guys] aren’t gonna’ stop me. Nobody is ruining this event, haha! I have worked too long and too hard to have anybody fuck this up. [Kenny turns up the mic volume, so everyone can hear what Mouse is saying] Where would you be without me Jonas Brothers, haha? Your music sucks and you know it, haha! It’s because you make little girls ginies tickle, and when little girls ginies tickle, I make money, haha. And that’s because little girls are fucking stupid, haha. And the purity rings make it ok to do whatever I want, haha. Even the Christians are too fucking stupid to figure out I’m selling sex to their daughters. I’ve made billions off of Christian ignorance for decades now, haha. And do you know why? Because Christians are retarded, haha! They believe in a talking dead guy, haha!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8n...ian_shortfilms

Argument against Vegetarians:

They don't eat meat.


Soooo which are worse?

[bigspenda73]

Christians make me chuckle

Vegetarians do not

[BennyLaRue]

Vegetarians are only annoying when talking about food. Christians are constantly annoying. Ez call.

[spoonitnow]

This was really just an excuse to post that video, but it's old so I couldn't risk getting flamed.

[jjbish]

I've eaten both. I've enjoyed both. I guess it depends on what flavor you like.

[a500lbgorilla]

food > god

[XTR1000]

i voted vegetarians but meant rilla

[givememyleg]

there are worse people in life than those who praise jeebus and those who only eat grass.

[BankItDrew]

I'm borderline militant atheist but vegetarians tend to stick their shit in my face more often, i vote vegetarians.

[mrhappy333]

christians Obv.

[JKDS]

if you put a broken watch in a bag, and shake the bag, you'll never get a new watch!

Christians, not close.

[jyms]

The vegetarians that spend no time educating themselves about eating veggy are the more annoying vegetarians by far. But christians are even too stupid to understand even when they do educate themselves in the face of everything we have seen come out of the bible. How can you be a christian and not read the bible, and how can you be a christian after you have?

[meeloche]

Can't it be both?

[JKDS]

Can't it be both?

CAN there be a both? a veggy christian???? no, something that horrible cant possibly exist.

[kevster]

I don't think a Vegetarian has ever knocked on my door and tried to talk bullshit at me but the same cunt christians (or whatever variant) keep knocking my door.

The bastards even did it yesterday and I've had gastroenteritis for 3 days.

Probably because I'm a veggie.

[wufwugy]

How can you be a christian and not read the bible, and how can you be a christian after you have?

Fucking A

As for teh OP, I'm gonna try to not go on a long post here, so I'll just say that the types of things I'm reminded of when confronted with this question is that Christianity is responsible for tremendous evil, while vegetarianism is not. Having said that, if it wasn't for Christianity, it is very likely that we would all be Muslims and science and democracy would have never taken root. So for all the bad that comes from Christianity, I can acknowledge that without a popular and militant superstition to make war with Islam during the first couple millenia, we'd all be fucked

[spoonitnow]

Having said that, if it wasn't for Christianity, it is very likely that we would all be Muslims and science and democracy would have never taken root.

Yeah you just lost like all credibility period.

[wufwugy]

Having said that, if it wasn't for Christianity, it is very likely that we would all be Muslims and science and democracy would have never taken root.

Yeah you just lost like all credibility period.

It's called history

[d0zer]

Can't it be both?

Yeah. It boils down to the individual, and I'm not sure that the militant fundamentalist gene or whatever the fuck produces that in yer face face, holier than thou cockwad is that selective about its cause tbh...

[jjbish]

To back up my thoughts.
I 've seen way too many furry female christians. At least the vegies shaved.

Catholics don't recognize jews.
Jews don't recognize jeebus.
Baptists don't recognize each other in the strp club.

[Chelle]

I think all people are fucked in the head in their own little ways.

They can do what the fuck they want, but leave me the fuck out of it.

[AdamThePirate]

Having said that, if it wasn't for Christianity, it is very likely that we would all be Muslims and science and democracy would have never taken root. So for all the bad that comes from Christianity, I can acknowledge that without a popular and militant superstition to make war with Islam during the first couple millenia, we'd all be fucked

You do realise that pretty much all of science in the middle ages came from Islamic countries...

Although Europe had been exposed to Islamic culture for centuries through contacts in Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, much knowledge in areas such as science, medicine, and architecture was transferred from the Islamic to the western world during the crusade era.

Along with trade, new scientific discoveries and inventions made their way east or west. Arab advances (including the development of algebra, optics, and refinement of engineering) made their way west and sped the course of advancement in European universities that led to the Renaissance in later centuries

Now I realise that Wikipedia isn't exactly a bastion of truth everytime, but really, come on, how could you not know this?

[boost]

ya, wuf Im pretty surprised to hear that coming from you. Actually we could go so far as to assume the opposite of what you said. Without christianity, islam would likely not have developed along such a militant path. Extremism does not come about without and adversary to provoke its development.

And actually Im thinking that I remember learning that man muslim rulers of antiquity were actually quite tolerant of people having their own beliefs. Far more tolerant than european christians Im sure..

[kevster]

I think all people are fucked in the head in their own little ways.

They can do what the fuck they want, but leave me the fuck out of it.

This needs more love.

"There is no such thing in life as normal".

[wufwugy]

You do realise that pretty much all of science in the middle ages came from Islamic countries...

Yes, some did. I'm not saying one thing or the other would have happened, that's just stupid. I'm referring to two rather backed up hypotheses: 1) that conflict between nations/peoples is a primary driver in technological development, and 2) militant religions are primary drivers in conflict.

Without competing religions it is likely that the entire planet would be one religion, and this would create great strain on technological development, especially if it went the way of fundie Islam. This could have gone many ways though, and there are a TON of other factors that could have sent things in all kinds of different directions.

My comment is a kind of side remark about a plausible historical hypothesis, that's all. This is the thing about hypotheses attempting to analyze history: they're very sketchy, and there's virtually zero consensus among experts except over hard facts.

[WillburForce]

veggies are alright. They don't like to eat animals. up to them.

All religious people are mentally ill, but probably can't be helped. shoot them.

[flomo]

so many people to hate, so little time

[Luco]

Christians are more annoying by far.

[mcatdog]

Both of them are pretty insufferable when they attempt to force their beliefs, or preach to people who don't want to hear about it. Otherwise I have no problem with either. Atheists are equally as annoying if they're the type who love to brag about how not believing in God makes them so much god damn smarter than those idiots who do.

[Vinland]

ya, wuf Im pretty surprised to hear that coming from you. Actually we could go so far as to assume the opposite of what you said. Without christianity, islam would likely not have developed along such a militant path. Extremism does not come about without and adversary to provoke its development.

And actually Im thinking that I remember learning that man muslim rulers of antiquity were actually quite tolerant of people having their own beliefs. Far more tolerant than european christians Im sure..

imo much of this is wrong....when Islam caught fire through Arabia it spread thru conquest across north africa and the other middle eastern countries. I have read a good deal on the spread of islam at the beginning and christians did not pose any adversarial affect. The fact is, the christians got steamrolled until the spanish moors tried to invade France and were finally held in check to keep much of Europe in christian hands.

Yes some islamic rulers were tollerant in especially Palestine and I agree, that rolls reversed, christian wouldn't have been nearly as tollerant....
However much of that changed with the conversion and subsequent conquest of Palestine and present day Turkey by the Turks.....they were not so kind.....it wasn't until the first crusade (over 300 years after the start of islam) that Christians really started to return fire.

A good book to read on the subject is called "The Dream and the Tomb" I believe the author is Robert Payne.

[BennyLaRue]

Atheists are equally as annoying if they're the type who love to brag about how not believing in God makes them so much god damn smarter than those idiots who do.

Yes, this. Extremism of any type, especially that which is freely announced without provocation, is all kinds of annoying.

I feel extreme about that point.

[a500lbgorilla]

All I know is that I'm an atheist and not believing in god makes me so much god damn smarter than those idiot who do.

[CoccoBill]

My comment is a kind of side remark about a plausible historical hypothesis, that's all. This is the thing about hypotheses attempting to analyze history: they're very sketchy, and there's virtually zero consensus among experts except over hard facts.

Rather than basing our opinion on a hypothesis, we can observe the clearly detailed effects of the church on science:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bb5...gbs_navlinks_s

[spoonitnow]

All I know is that I'm an atheist and not believing in god makes me so much god damn smarter than those idiot who do.

+1

[givememyleg]

kill rilla

[d0zer]

Both of them are pretty insufferable when they attempt to force their beliefs, or preach to people who don't want to hear about it. Otherwise I have no problem with either. Atheists are equally as annoying if they're the type who love to brag about how not believing in God makes them so much god damn smarter than those idiots who do.

Yay for reasonable people

[flomo]

Atheists are equally as annoying

yep

[bigred]

Both of them are pretty insufferable when they attempt to force their beliefs, or preach to people who don't want to hear about it. Otherwise I have no problem with either. Atheists are equally as annoying if they're the type who love to brag about how not believing in God makes them so much god damn smarter than those idiots who do.

Yay for reasonable people

You guys are just igorannnnn

[Parasurama]

Vegeta>Jesus

[bigred]

Vegeta>Jesus

U R GAY

[wufwugy]

My comment is a kind of side remark about a plausible historical hypothesis, that's all. This is the thing about hypotheses attempting to analyze history: they're very sketchy, and there's virtually zero consensus among experts except over hard facts.

Rather than basing our opinion on a hypothesis, we can observe the clearly detailed effects of the church on science:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bb5...gbs_navlinks_s

Well, unless the book is full of nothing but irrefutable facts easily verified, then it will involve hypotheses or theories. But I'm not even addressing how the Church affected science. It was bad, really bad, and it still is.

What I'm referring to is a much more basic look at how conflict drives tech, and that without several religions battling each other, it is likely that society would be even more authoritarian than the Church has managed.

[a500lbgorilla]

kill rilla

you can try... like a fool! My vegetarian diet has left me with lighting-fast reflexes, sucka!

[Jack Sawyer]

lol how are jehova's witnesses not on that poll

[bigred]

lol how are jehova's witnesses not on that poll

cause they're like witnesses and witnesses are like proof and stuff

[spoonitnow]

lol how are jehova's witnesses not on that poll

Unrelated to the thread but my parents were both baptized as Jehovah's Witnesses.....

.....and the really sad part is I'm not making this shit up.

[CoccoBill]

What I'm referring to is a much more basic look at how conflict drives tech, and that without several religions battling each other, it is likely that society would be even more authoritarian than the Church has managed.

I don't think it's anywhere near that clean cut. Conflict undeniably drives technology, but mainly only regarding stuff that can be used to blow shit up. Sometimes what they come up with turns out to be otherwise useful also, but those cases are more accidental than predetermined. Also, while possibly the largest, religion is not the only contributor to conflict. Personally I ('d like to) think humanity would be much better off without religions.

[bigred]

So if conflict drives technology, why was Africa so slow in developing technology? I watch fox news, I know how dangerous THEY are...

[a500lbgorilla]

So if conflict drives technology, why was Africa so slow in developing technology? I watch fox news, I know how dangerous THEY are...

check and mate

[CoccoBill]

So if conflict drives technology, why was Africa so slow in developing technology? I watch fox news, I know how dangerous THEY are...

I'd say scarcity of basic necessities such as food (farmland) and clean water. Agriculture is what kicked early european civilizations into high gear allowing for the use of resources for other things besides bare survival, such as culture and science. Obv throwing spears at the neighboring tribe won't solve the human genome, but it might very well lead to more advanced tools for harvesting or craftsmanship. Conflict doesn't create resources, it merely reallocates them, causing things like nuclear power and GPS to pop up as a side product.

[bikes]

Live and let live obv.

[Monty3038]

Hmm... pale and pasty vs. righteous indignation...

[Warpe]

Christitarians are the worst.

[bigred]

So if conflict drives technology, why was Africa so slow in developing technology? I watch fox news, I know how dangerous THEY are...

I'd say scarcity of basic necessities such as food (farmland) and clean water. Agriculture is what kicked early european civilizations into high gear allowing for the use of resources for other things besides bare survival, such as culture and science. Obv throwing spears at the neighboring tribe won't solve the human genome, but it might very well lead to more advanced tools for harvesting or craftsmanship. Conflict doesn't create resources, it merely reallocates them, causing things like nuclear power and GPS to pop up as a side product.

NO ITS BECAUSE THEY'RE LAZY

[BankItDrew]

Why is that idiot yet fit Republican on this page?

[spoonitnow]

lol bigred

[Parasurama]

So if conflict drives technology, why was Africa so slow in developing technology? I watch fox news, I know how dangerous THEY are...

I'd say scarcity of basic necessities such as food (farmland) and clean water. Agriculture is what kicked early european civilizations into high gear allowing for the use of resources for other things besides bare survival, such as culture and science. Obv throwing spears at the neighboring tribe won't solve the human genome, but it might very well lead to more advanced tools for harvesting or craftsmanship. Conflict doesn't create resources, it merely reallocates them, causing things like nuclear power and GPS to pop up as a side product.

NO ITS BECAUSE THEY'RE LAZY

damn bigred you look pretty good in drag

[wufwugy]

So if conflict drives technology, why was Africa so slow in developing technology? I watch fox news, I know how dangerous THEY are...

Well, Africa did see some indigenous tech development out of conflict. But in answer to the question: watch the documentary Guns, Germs, and Steel. Jared Diamond explains quite well the inequalities of tech development in different regions.

Basically, it has to do with agricultural capacity of certain regions, domesticated 'work' animals, the layout of land/sea geography, and dynamic enough conflict among different peoples in 'equal' agricultural regions. Europe and the Middle East was the only region on the planet that had enough of these factors to drive tech much faster than Africa, Americas, and East Asia. Each region did have tech development, mostly East Asia, but the geographical setup was most ripe in Europe/Middle East for massive amounts of back and forth conflict and tech.

[wufwugy]

What I'm referring to is a much more basic look at how conflict drives tech, and that without several religions battling each other, it is likely that society would be even more authoritarian than the Church has managed.

I don't think it's anywhere near that clean cut. Conflict undeniably drives technology, but mainly only regarding stuff that can be used to blow shit up. Sometimes what they come up with turns out to be otherwise useful also, but those cases are more accidental than predetermined. Also, while possibly the largest, religion is not the only contributor to conflict. Personally I ('d like to) think humanity would be much better off without religions.

In a way, humanity would be way better off without religion. I speculate that without religion, we would have been much more likely to suffer extinction at some point in our hominid evolution, but in modern times, religion is terrible

And I'm not saying that what I originally pointed out is the only factor. There are a TON of factors. Jared Diamond makes a pretty good case of explaining how the entire technological differences between pre-modern societies was due to the ability to expound on conflict. But that's not to say that many other factors don't play a role.

Also, I think it's likely that religion isn't even the primary driver of conflict. It's one of them, but the primary driver is likely one of resources. Often this gets masked by religion, though, and sometimes resource allocation doesn't even seem to be involved. But ultimately, I think that the majority of historians agree that it's mainly about resources.

That's not to say that the conflict of religion didn't play an integral role though.

[Sir Pawnalot]

"What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion"

Albert Einstein, "The World as I see it".

Although it is impossible to prove that humans are inherently religious, humans do create systems of meaning- whether they consider these systems religious or not.

However, religion is not the only way of creating such systems. But without the set of assumptions we encounter in religions, we can not assume significance of our own life or of the cosmos at large.

I am not religious, but the lack of any belief system sent me onto a path of destruction, and although I can not accept irrational dogmas I do appreciate the power of such belief systems.

We are all fooling ourselves, whether we accept it or not.

Edit: I find this thread disrespectful.

[wufwugy]

The question 'What is the meaning of life' begs the question i.e. assumes its own premise

[Sir Pawnalot]

Yeah, but if you do not assume the premise that life has meaning- what then?

It would be no reason to not kill or take suicide- because the pleasure or displeasure it causes has no significance. If we say that life has no meaning- yet we still seek pleasure, we contradict ourselves- because there no longer is rational difference between pleasure and displeasure.

If we accept that life has no meaning- everything is equal in value.

[Sir Pawnalot]

A Norwegian philosopher once said, "We can never know the true meaning OF life, but we can create meaning IN life"

And it is this creation of meaning that many students of religion view as the essential thrust in all religions.

[boost]

Yeah, but if you do not assume the premise that life has meaning- what then?

There not being a god does not make life meaningless. This assumption by you sets up your whole argument and therefore your whole argument is built on sand. Not only that but this is such a cyclical reason for having faith. Because you fear the implications of there not being a god, you believe in god. Youve already shut the door on the possibility of there not being a god without even exploring the idea in any depth.

It would be no reason to not kill or take suicide- because the pleasure or displeasure it causes has no significance. If we say that life has no meaning- yet we still seek pleasure, we contradict ourselves- because there no longer is rational difference between pleasure and displeasure.

Again you are saying there is no significance to pleasure or displeasure if there is no god. This is false. I do not believe in any sort of god, higher purpose, ect. I have not nor do I intend to murder anyone nor am I going to kill myself. I enjoy life, like to hang out with my friends, I enjoy several hobbies, life is good.

If we accept that life has no meaning- everything is equal in value.

What? No. If there is no higher meaning to our existence, rice still tastes better than dog shit, a ferrari is still way cooler than a mustang, and scarlett johansson is still way hotter than rosie o'donnel. The simple fact that we have consciousness and that one day we all will lose our consciousness makes it special, and therefore sets up a whole value system. A value system independent of any higher purpose, god, other type of creator..

[boost]

A Norwegian philosopher once said, "We can never know the true meaning OF life, but we can create meaning IN life"

And it is this creation of meaning that many students of religion view as the essential thrust in all religions.

Yep, at one point in time humans were unsure of the actual nature of the world they lived on. So someone created the notion that the world was a flat disk supported by massive pillars. People were burned at the stake for making claims that disagreed. Funny because people were also burned at the stake for objecting to the existence of god, or for believe in another god.

But who cares about all that.. the quote seems to infer that god is simply a creation of man who did not have a way to explain the world he lived in. Spot on, nice quote.

[boost]

"What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion"

Albert Einstein, "The World as I see it".

Although it is impossible to prove that humans are inherently religious, humans do create systems of meaning- whether they consider these systems religious or not.

However, religion is not the only way of creating such systems. But without the set of assumptions we encounter in religions, we can not assume significance of our own life or of the cosmos at large.

I am not religious, but the lack of any belief system sent me onto a path of destruction, and although I can not accept irrational dogmas I do appreciate the power of such belief systems.

We are all fooling ourselves, whether we accept it or not.

Edit: I find this thread disrespectful.

Irrational dogmas.. yep he was a pretty smart guy..

[Sir Pawnalot]

Boost-

Read my words again. Your response to the first post has little, if anything to do with my posts. I never equalled God with religion.

"Youve already shut the door on the possibility of there not being a god without even exploring the idea in any depth." Harsh words to someone who is atheistic, or at best agnostic.


And I was the one writing about irrational dogmas. Only first sentence was Einstein.

[boost]

Boost-

Read my words again. Your response to the first post has little, if anything to do with my posts. I never equalled God with religion.

And I was the one writing about irrational dogmas. Only first sentence was Einstein.

lol.. wat? Is that seriously your response? Fine, then I respond in a nice broad way that cannot miss the mark: your god does not exist. The belief in his existence overall has caused negative impacts on this world. Religion has trained people to be lemmings that believe that there is virtue in blind faith. It has worked for ages to suppress empirical facts and critical thinking. This is why christians find themselves on this pole.

[Sir Pawnalot]

Please, I am atheist. Do not put words in my mouth.

I think you perceive difference in opinion, when in fact we have different understanding of what religion is.

My view of religion resonates with William James; "If any one phrase could gather religions universal message, that phrase would be, "All is not vanity in this universe, whatever the appearances may suggest"

I think its funny you agree with me when you thought it was Einsteins words, but when its Pwnalot you must disagree even where no disagreement can be found.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, but if you do not assume the premise that life has meaning- what then?

This is where semantics and abstraction of language break down. We're not dealing with a dichotomy i.e. it's not that either there's meaning or there's not, this is ultimately an unknowable question and premise, and meaning could simply have no relevance to life/existence. We just don't see this due to the limits of our biology and linguistics

As for 'personal meaning', this is always a sort of unanswerable question simply because personal meaning is in the eyes of the beholder, and thus any answer that the person asking the question deems worthy is a worthy answer (which, ironically, makes it an easy to answer question).

Also, religion is sort of a method of searching for meaning, but that's kind of a bad way to put it. Religion is a massive biological imperative of the human species; we've evolved to be very superstitious and to form societies and ideologies around those superstitions for survival purposes. It is also a method of relieving stress and inducing comfort/bliss which is easily confused with a search for meaning.


The takeaway point is that ultimate meaning is a false idea because it may have no relevance to reality, and that personal meaning is determined by the person (and this pretty much boils down to happiness)

[boost]

Please, I am atheist. Do not put words in my mouth.

I think you perceive difference in opinion, when in fact we have different understanding of what religion is.

My view of religion resonates with William James; "If any one phrase could gather religions universal message, that phrase would be, "All is not vanity in this universe, whatever the appearances may suggest"

I think its funny you agree with me when you thought it was Einsteins words, but when its Pwnalot you must disagree even where no disagreement can be found.

Ya, I def misunderstood your intent, but I hope you can see how I managed to do so.

So can you clarify what you were trying to express in those 3 posts? Because I honestly am not completely sure. There didnt seem to be a concise questions, or statement.

[Sir Pawnalot]

I agree 100 % with you wufwugy.

"The takeaway point is that ultimate meaning is a false idea because it may have no relevance to reality, and that personal meaning is determined by the person (and this pretty much boils down to happiness)"

I was refering to "personal meaning" just as much as "ultimate meaning". My suggested implications, like there being no difference in value between killing or not- was mostly pointing to "personal meaning".

Religion is not only a communal activity, but also a personal search for meaning. I do not think it is possible to live a life where we infer no meaning into our own experiences.

So yeah I agree- ultimate meaning is unreacheable, and personal meaning is unavoidable.

[boost]

Please, I am atheist. Do not put words in my mouth.

I think you perceive difference in opinion, when in fact we have different understanding of what religion is.

My view of religion resonates with William James; "If any one phrase could gather religions universal message, that phrase would be, "All is not vanity in this universe, whatever the appearances may suggest"

I think its funny you agree with me when you thought it was Einsteins words, but when its Pwnalot you must disagree even where no disagreement can be found.

Ya, I def misunderstood your intent, but I hope you can see how I managed to do so.

So can you clarify what you were trying to express in those 3 posts? Because I honestly am not completely sure. There didnt seem to be a concise questions, or statement.

[Sir Pawnalot]

Boost- basically what I tried to say was;

1. Humans create meaning. A hundred dollar bill is not worth shit on Saturn.

2. I understand religion essentially as the process of creating meaning. This varies from religion to religion, and from person to person.

Conclusion: All humans are religious- whether we believe in God or not.

Hence, "We are all fooling ourselves, whether we accept it or not."

[wufwugy]

2. I understand religion essentially as the process of creating meaning. This varies from religion to religion, and from person to person.

Conclusion: All humans are religious- whether we believe in God or not.

You're defining religion a bit differently than dictionaries, philosophers, historians, overall consensus, etc.

[Sir Pawnalot]

I agree I boiled it down to the salts. But there are innumerous and widely different definitions of what religion is.

My definition of religion is closer to Clifford Geertz`s definition than the more traditional definitions;

"Religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."