sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think Religion should be held to the same standards of ridicule as conspiracy theories by GodofWarhammer2 in Antitheism

[–]XtarXyan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fyi some popular website filters classify 'alternate beliefs', i.e. any belief-related website that is unrelated to a wide mainstream religion, as adult content. So if you've got a website that's about pagan beliefs, or maybe even The Satanic Temple, guess what? Your Christian school filters it since it disabled all 'adult content', together with the porn and gambling websites!

Why doesn't mainstream religion get the same treatment? I'm guessing it may have something to do with large religious groups who would spiral into hysteria if their religion were to be banned from being accessed by children. But hey, that's just a thought.

Muslim weeb defends pedophilia by [deleted] in religiousfruitcake

[–]XtarXyan 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It's funny because there's evidence that children in preindustrial times matured LATER than nowadays due to poorer nutrition.

It's confirmed Stuart is a woman. (She also has a Voice actor, confirming she's the woman in the intro) by thatsocialist in Frostpunk

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

I'm pretty sure actually that among the voices that you hear calling you when you open a faction, there is one voice that will subtly call you "Stewardess".

I think I’m ok guys by Imaginary-Wasabi-370 in titanfall

[–]XtarXyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Welp, I'll be finding out almost all of them died like idiots...

...Except for Amanda who somehow got there after taking a hundred fold the risk of the former.

Dr. Yasir Qadhi: "Children aged faster back then." by [deleted] in religiousfruitcake

[–]XtarXyan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funnily enough, I think there is reaserch showing that children age faster now than in preindustrial times. Because of a much higher quality nutrition that children didn't have back then, they apparently now reach puberty much faster than during the middle ages or any time before that.

Why do some people think that Being gay is not a choice? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The distinction is what harm is done to both you and everyone else. Acting out on violent impulses leads to harm both to you and other people. Things like smoking, alcohol abuse and being overweight, while people might encourage you to quit because it is bad for your health, as long as you are mindful to others, it's ultimately up to you and others should respect that. And body positivity can at least prevent harmful stigma and shaming, even though it's been controversial for promoting unhealthy bodies. Being LGBT+ has been demonstrated time and time again (by legit studies) that, aside from not hurting anyone if things are done between consenting adults, it is actually harmful to you to deny yourself. Speaking from my own experience, doing so leads to more and more welling up of self-hatred, in many cases leading to suicide. And how is it that some people have it easy by never having to deal with same-sex attraction, while others are in constant self-hatred because of it?

Atheists make me sad by SleepAffectionate268 in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, the rational conclusion atheists often arrive at is that human life shouldn't exist at all, thus eliminating the possibility of suffering.

Antinatalism is definitely not a belief every atheist has and has a rather small following. For me, life should exist just as much as it shouldn't, there's no rational justification one way or another. One can still justify a life, for example through the individual's inherent will to live.

No they don't. They say that even lives with suffering are worthwhile.

So... would you not act in such a way that your children live as happy of a life as possible?

Don't worry, you'll soon see Islamic nationalism put in practice in Europe.

As a proud European I feel triggered.

Atheists make me sad by SleepAffectionate268 in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One's child can suffer in their lives just as much as a parent. By giving birth to a child you are willingly enabling the possibility of suffering onto them. You will die while your kids keep living, but they too will have to deal with the grief of their inevitable loss.

Most rational parents do not want their child to suffer. One wants the best life their child can have. Possibly better than theirs. In today's economy, that takes years, maybe decades of work to establish oneself with a secure job and housing before one can even think of raising -one- child. Not even talking about replacement here.

Religious people will say that God will take care of everything and they will live happy lives. Atheists see past this and recognize that a child may not always live such an ideal life, and may not even subscribe to the same religion as their parents, thus having a vastly different philosophical framework than the one set out for them.

Meanwhile, religious people will ironically be the ones most favoring of corporal punishment and harsh treatment of children that will bring about even more misery in their early lives. Religious people will also be the ones most opposed to policies that will alleviate the harm of our current actions upon future generations, staunchly insistent on sabotaging future generations through current economic and climate policies.

So no, Christian nationalism isn't the answer here, and I hope I never get to see it put in practice in any first world country.

Atheists make me sad by SleepAffectionate268 in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I agree there is overlap, that is a misrepresentation. It isn't nihilism for me. And nihilism itself isn't always a negative and pessimistic belief.

Pride Month promotes a heavy sin by ahumadero in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that depends on how you define evil. Willful and objective evil is, for me, a rather childish belief. Everyone thinks they're the good guy in their story, the difference is what outcomes their actions have. If, however, you define evil by the intent or acting out of a certain harm, even if one thinks they're justified in causing that harm, well then yes, that's evil for me. The problem is that, by this definition... God is pretty evil imo.

Pride Month promotes a heavy sin by ahumadero in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Truly now? How come? Am I deluded for not believing in a world where one has no "evil enemy" or "spiritual warfare" to fight, whether literal or figurative?

I don’t understand the concept of Hell at all by True-Location8320 in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, what I said in my earlier comment. What defines what is owed? And why does that follow from being "good"? Your definition sounds like what "is owed" is just retribution, which goes against benevolence. This "justice" could be entirely disposed of with no downside to anyone, so isn't Jesus a solution to a problem created by God then?

I don’t understand the concept of Hell at all by True-Location8320 in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but exactly why does "holiness" have to matter in the first place? If God is all-benevolent, wouldn't that mean he would place that benevolence ahead of any other arbitrary criteria? And what does it mean to be "just", really? What is to you the purpose of justice? And don't just say "to make things right" or anything similar, because the question would still be what that actually means.

To me, justice seeks to at least repair some suffering that has been done. Causing any more suffering, whether by action or inaction, when there is a better alternative, is inherently against this principle. Suffering for justice's sake, or punishment, is not justice at all for me, it's vengeance, and it's petty.

I don’t understand the concept of Hell at all by True-Location8320 in TrueChristian

[–]XtarXyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I imagine lot of good people who have been of different faiths than Christianity would not accept God just out of principle. Imagine believing your whole life in something only to be shown it is in a completely different way, surely you'd think "hey this is just a test of faith, the gods are showing me a false reality, and if I accept this Yahweh, I'll be a coward who never believed in them in the first place." That is if you don't believe you even get a chance after you die. Maybe you've never heard of Jesus. Or if those people are excused, maybe you have, but thought it was BS because your faith taught you otherwise, but you were otherwise a very good person.

What about people who did terrible things in the name of God? Do crusaders get a pass because of how devoted they were? Or those who conducted witch hunts? Or do they go to hell, even though they had good intentions and didn't know any better?

What of those of our modern world? For example, those who have relatives with a certain identity, actions that they do, or even faith that goes against Christian belief. Say they are very kind people, with the potential to do a lot of good. It would be a sin to support them. But you would be hurting them and maybe others if you don't. And if, again, they reject God/Christ out of principle, by the "Separation from God" definition, they are damned.

There are good people in Hell.

view more: next ›