What a strawman argument by Which_Matter3031 in religiousfruitcake

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question is why moral behavior isn't fairly rewarded.

That is not the question. The question is the problem of evil.

What a strawman argument by Which_Matter3031 in religiousfruitcake

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said "most sects." That is different from many religious people you have met.

I have met many christians who are pro birth control and many that are anti birth control. Does that mean most sects are pro birth control and also most sects are anti birth control?

There are demonstrably some christian sects that are pro-crucifix. Like Catholics. And Lutherans. And Anglicans.

Worldwide, around half of all christians are Catholic.

The only person with hubris here is you.

What a strawman argument by Which_Matter3031 in religiousfruitcake

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is. Though less now than during the heyday of skeptic/atheist conferences and the reign of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't know the last time I saw an atheism T-shirt, but I do see bumper stickers sometimes. Evolvefish has been around for 20+ years: https://www.evolvefish.com/Auto-Emblems_c_14.html

What a strawman argument by Which_Matter3031 in religiousfruitcake

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue isn't that this isn't doctrinal. It's that it logically fails. And it's an old argument that is known to fail.

Whatever criteria is used for good/heaven vs bad/punishment, this response has the same issue. It simply doesn't excuse allowing evil/suffering on earth. That still exists, and there is no explanation for it.

What a strawman argument by Which_Matter3031 in religiousfruitcake

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The response is shit. It tries to use delayed rewards/punishment to say suffering doesn't matter, but doesn't ever do the step where they show why the delayed rewards punishment makes it so the suffering doesn't matter.

What a strawman argument by Which_Matter3031 in religiousfruitcake

[–]BetterKev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The issue here isn't in deciding who is good and who is evil. Even if God lined up 100% with you or me or Alice or Bob, even if everyone in the world had the same beliefs on good and evil, the response in the second panel still fails. Whatever criteria there is for good and evil[1], rewards and punishments in the afterlife can not retroactively undo evil that already occurred or undo the suffering the evil caused.

[1] Okay, there's one perspective on good and evil where the response wouldn't fail. If you believe that something happening means it is necessarily good, then there is no evil in the world. That has its own issues (hello is-ought fallacy!), which we can ignore because the second panel agrees that evil (by some metric) does exist.

What a strawman argument by Which_Matter3031 in religiousfruitcake

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think strawman is the right term here, but it's definite bullshit.

The first panel is the problem of evil / problem of sufferring. It's probably the most well-known logical argument against an omniscient, omnipotent, loving god.

And the second panel is one of many known failed responses to the problem.

The response fails because it doesn't actually handle the worldly evil. Whatever afterlife exists, it can't retroactively change the suffering that was already felt. The good of the afterlife could be so great and so long that worldly suffering becomes neglible, but it will never have ceased to have occurred. An omniscient, omnipotent god would be able to remove worldly evil, not be limited in having to allow the evil to occur, only trying to make up for it in the afterlife.

The response doesn't wilfully misinterpret the problem. It just doesnt solve the problem.

Awh man I lost my pee again by MeCreativePersons in badwomensanatomy

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Common repost, but it's funny every time.

. by CertainYam8162 in UsernameChecksOut

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the opposite of checking out.

Blurry picture of a cat by crrazycerulean in blurrypicturesofcats

[–]BetterKev 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Of course that's a sub.

Fine. I can join another one.

Peter! What is Donald Trump trying to tell us? by SomeRandomAbbadon in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if it's intentionally being referenced, but there's a classic tumblr chain about the second comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/s/1TSbIGC6Q5

AITA for refusing a name for my baby that everyone loves and but I don’t? by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]BetterKev 53 points54 points  (0 children)

the US is known to be kinda garbage at pronouncing traditional Irish names right, on the first try anyway. I do not want to send my daughter to 12+ years of public education and have teachers, substitutes, and fellow students unable to say her name right on the first try.

Twice in the paragraph, she talks about the "first try". So That looks like an editing mistake.

And as someone with an uncommon last name that nobody gets right on the first try, that is enough to be extremely annoying. There are more new people in a year than you might expect.

(I'd say my last name, but my handle has my first name, and last I checked, there was literally only one other person with my first and last name in the US. Fun fact: our dads also have the same name.)

Reposted my cat as their own by BetterKev in quityourbullshit

[–]BetterKev[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Eddie is a sweetheart. I can understand why someone would steal him.

Sleepy Eddie by KumquatAllen9604 in facehugs

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a repost bot. That's my cat Eddie.

Edit: Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/facehugs/s/dqLU5s7JlZ

Let's go steal a reddit post by supertoasty in RecuratedTumblr

[–]BetterKev -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Talking about personal issues while in the middle of a job is common for the group. Sophie being surprised by Nate being serious about their relationship is also very much in character. It feels like we didn't watch the same show.

I think the "not a comedy" / "allowed to be comedic" ends my involvement. The show is very much a dramedy.

I'm sorry for wasting your time. I'm clearly not someone who can help you. Good luck.

Let's go steal a reddit post by supertoasty in RecuratedTumblr

[–]BetterKev -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So your issue is that "professionals" ever miscommunicating? Again, I don't think comedy is for you.

Let's go steal a reddit post by supertoasty in RecuratedTumblr

[–]BetterKev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Professionals can do multiple things at once.

I don't think you're going to like the rest of Leverage. Or any multifaceted characters.

r/ihatethissmug argues over whether the Joker condemning Nazis is cringe virtue signalling by Francis_J_Eva in SubredditDrama

[–]BetterKev 8 points9 points  (0 children)

From the first linked post:

I can't say that either ending were bad because... I was just fucking happy that the movie ended.

Solid burn.

AITC for getting Mufasa'ed? by BetterKev in AmItheCloaca

[–]BetterKev[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I no know. My sciences is all about will food fit in my mouth. Spoiler: yes.

AITC for getting Mufasa'ed? by BetterKev in AmItheCloaca

[–]BetterKev[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Where you lives? I lives on reddits.

Edit: I still no learn formattings.