>>1311519
So true! thanks for this one!!

Completely biased. I Personally think it's awful. If it makes you feel better about yourself to use it though than go ahead

>>1311527
>Fag

>I like it

>>1311527
I agree with you completely. If this is what gets you through your day, have fun. You obviously are a very ignorant person.

Last line and the stupid 'A' ruin it.

I like it. Although I don't think it needs the "fucking", which I think lessens the overall impact of the point you're making.

God is not the problem here. The people are.... the people are....

I find it interesting that you seem to be referring to the Judeo-Christian God, but are deliberately spelling it with a small-case "g". I would have taken it to assume that you're using the standards against any so-called 'god', but at the same time you're specifically applying the Catholic standards of the Cardinal Sins against the Judeo-Christian God.

Did you use the small-case as a deliberate slight? Or am I over-analyzing this stuff? (you titled the picture with a capital G)

Last line ruins it, as does swearing and insulting. You want the last line to leave a meaningful impact, not make people think you are an insolent child.

Also, the "A" seems out of place and more or less redundant.

And also, personally the wood background looks kind of bad. I think I would have gone for clouds or a black and white sunset, something like that.

My views anyway. Have a plane.

I like it
Remove the 'fucking' ; end it by 'guilty of stupidity' or 'plain stupidity' whichever ...
Crop part of the top and part of bottom to get a lower H/W ratio and have the text more readable.

Well, that was dumb. I feel as if my IQ just dropped 50 points.

Wrath is not any use of force or any expression of anger, it is the inappropriate or excessive use of force and anger. One could reasonably argue that the punishment is excessive, but not that any punishment is automatically the sin of wrath.

Excessive amounts of money would by greed. Again, we could argue over what constitutes "excessive."

Sloth would imply He is idle out of laziness, not out of purpose. You're not idle for resting on Sundays any more than you are for waiting while your code compiles. One could argue that non-interference in the face of what we've done takes more effort than stepping in and stopping it. Not sure to what purpose that nonintervention is meant, but it doesn't necessarily constitute sloth.

God does not demand all people everywhere dedicate devoting lives solely to His worship. He does instruct that we devote some of our lives to Him, or that some of us devote all of our lives to Him, but the Bible recognizes and encourages living a life outside of worship.

If God was watching our sex lives for the purpose of self-gratification, it would be lust. If it's for our own good, or if He doesn't get anything out of it, it's not.

God could only be guilty of envying other gods for their worship if those gods exist, or if He punishes idolaters out of jealousy or envy. If He punishes them to steer them toward the right path, He is no more guilty than a stern parent.

If He commands his followers to evangelize so He can bask in worship, it's gluttony. If He does it for their own good, it's not.

Look, there are plenty of good, rational arguments to make for atheism. Some of my best friends are atheists. Argue that God's rules (or the rules of crazies in caves, whichever you prefer) are bad because they are objectively shitty or self-contradictory (it's not hard to find real examples of the latter), not because you can rationalize God's motivations for His actions into cute categories. If you expect Christians to take our bad examples to task (and yes, they exist, the faith is full of imperfect asshats), don't fuck up the scene with your own shallow "clever" nonsense.

Fuck flood detection. Pic is proof that God exists and wants us to be happy.

Enjoyed reading and would get a reaction from the religious types. Depends what purpose you want it to serve..

2 n's in millennia dipshit.

Also: wasting time and energy creating lacklustre design trying to explain to idiot's the benefits of thinking for themselves (which they can't).

All Bible's are a work of fiction. Magical thinking is a by-product of evolution.
End thread.

>>1311653
me again...

have just read the whole thing and believe OP's ham-fisted use of language and grammar put him at around 15 (or mild spectrum autism).

>>1311519
I think you will find the words of Greek philosopher Epicurus to be a more poignant version of what you have written. If you find these words inspiring you will certainly enjoy reading his works (limited as they are). Just make sure that if you do, it would by better that you read a newer interpretation of his works; as older English writers have a tendency to castrate his words and demonize his intentions.

As to those who find OP's wallpaper unappealing, I quite agree. Let's not forget however, that we have all been at a stage of philosophical development of equivalent simplicity somewhere along the road. (unless of course you are among those who prefer the comfort of leaving big decisions to someone else)

>>1311658
me me again, this just gets worse the more I look at it - last comment, honest - I'm about to wet myself.

So it's the 7 deadly sins is it?
>even more ham-fisted than I thought.

and God should be capitalised - you can't expect to enter into a cogent argument with the almighty if you're going to disrespect him like that.

>>1311661
That's a very sensitive and encouraging statement.

>What the #@!$ are you doing on 4chan

>>1311662
You sound very butthurt.

>>1311663
Anon is many things, sometimes we even helps newfags

lolz, why do u care about god and stuff like that? u sir. must have some sort of a brain dmg. im afraid so yes.
ask yourself these lame questions:
if i have the will to not write stupid shit like that, but are still doing it, then im weakminded.
if im getting mad at religious ppl when i rly shoudlnt give two fucks about them, then im just an idiot... you see? see where im getting at? you are wasting your time and you cant have that back, now u read my comment and wasted time on that. u are not cewl and not goodlolololololol. other than that ill give u 3/10 because i like the background

>>1311668
Umad?
Underage butthurt detected.

>>1311669
sharing my satisfaction with his ideology. we got something in common. we both laughed.
inb4; umad bcuz u know u are bad, just saying

>>1311519
u got raped by a catholic?lolz

>>1311674
You sound like a niglet. Are you a niglet?

>>1311676
yes lol i thought u knew that alredy so why u ask me?

Here's mine

>>1311519
OP I agree completely, and the only thing you should do is capitalize god because you are referring to the specific character.

OP here. So much hate for so little effort. I stumbled on THIS http://cslackerDOTcom/images/view/5488, which was the inspiration. I thought I could do better. This was not intended to be a solid philosophical argument, either. Gluttony and lust in particular are on shaky ground at best, and the language at the end was derived from the original pic in the link. In a polite discussion, that would have been excluded, of course, but this is fucking 4chan. I thought I'd have a bit of fun and post it in case someone liked it, which I'm glad a few did.
I have some changes based on the comments, but the main ideas do not change, for those of you who still have a dick up your ass about philosophical correctness and religious/moral subjectivity.

>>1311559
>>1311570

>>1311570
incidentally, clouds were my first thought for a background!

and remember, folks, that this is meant to make atheists and the like chuckle, smirk, or nod in agreement. Of course it's philosophically simple; it only took 10 minutes. God only knows (heh) something like this won't actually change anyone's mind.

OP here one more time.
>>1311643
Actually, THIS pic is better evidence :-D

>>1311519
I have a thought: you're an imbecile.

I'll be honest. Every time we have one of these threads, I get a little weirded out by the number of theists on 4chan. I wonder, "shouldn't they all be somewhere more wholesome?" But then I remember that they just like getting righteous on the internet.

>>1311621

This sums up perfectly why I seceded from the mental constraints of religion...basically the way I see it...there are thousands upon thousands of religions in the world...what makes yours right?

Change 'god' to 'dog' and run a semordnilap to really confuse the reader.

Getting righteous makes you look like a bellend and is a waste of time; the internet is like the special Olympics..

>>1311787

What does it really imply to be a theist/atheist? I suppose we're basing our assumptions on a Western norm that associates atheism with non-religion, even though that doesn't have to be the case. I realize it's easy to envy what we've never had, but of the little I know of Eastern Orthodoxy, I dig their theology more than Catholicism and Protestantism (case in point: no bullshit about ancestral sin). The key thing that makes it inaccessible to me is that I have to pick up a Slavic language in order to appreciate it.

I'm writing as a theist, but I'm neutral to OP's statements, because they characterize a deity that... I don't even know what kind of god it's trying to characterize except a misconstrued and petulant one. If that represents the Judeo-Christian God (which I don’t believe is the case) sure, I would hate that “fucking idiot” too. Back when Calvinism was the rave, Jacobus Arminius basically concluded, “If God actually predetermines who gets salvation, and who gets damnation, then that makes him a colossal dickhead. Since being a colossal dickhead contradicts with his identity of being good, then predestination cannot be the means to salvation. Therefore, I must believe in the power of free-will in order to appreciate the reality of God not being a colossal dickhead.”

Keep an open mind before judging a theist – the malleability of imagining God can be more open that you think. Personally, Deism/Gnosticism (not based on the historical religions themselves, but in terms of their theology/philosophy) provides me the most satisfying reconciliation of God. Of course, I’m not under the illusion that God (presuming It is there) cares for how I reconcile with It. I wouldn’t be surprised if God were an all-powerful autistic, which would validate OP taking Him for a “fucking idiot”.

>>1311787
It's not theists who argue in these kind of threads, mostly. It's just less childish atheists or agnostics who are embarrassed by you.

>>1312196

Well thank you for asking! I wouldn't care to speculate as to what the term theist implies, but I would be happy to clarify its meaning...
To be a theist is (in the most general terms), to be one who believes that deity(s) exist. To be an atheist means to believe that deity(s) don't exist. As a follower of the school of Epicurean philosophy, my opinion is that God's existence is irrelevant. This idea is encompassed in the Riddle of Epicurus and includes all theism in its scope:
God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak - and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful - which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?
TLDR: that the gods allow for the suffering of the innocent kinda makes them dildos. This goes for any beliefs system where the gods are all powerful. If you don't believe the gods are all powerful then are they really gods?

pic related

>>1312345
He also developed the theory of atoms beyond it's originator's imagination; proposing that all material constructs could be described in terms of their atomic structure... in 250 B.C.

>>1312345
In more vernacular wording Epicurus' Riddle goes:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Try this one out an a reasonable theist sometime. I have found that they may actually contemplate the riddle (encouraging analysis is the most one should anticipate from such a debate).

I'll shut up now, I just relish the oppurtunity to share my discoveries with others.

Any intelligent person can understand that a society needs both progress and tradition; science and religion.

Though I believe in no god(s) of any definition whatsoever, I won't try to persuade anyone who does to abandon their beliefs. People coming from every angle- theist/atheist/agnostic or whatever you want to call these general beliefs- every side contains plenty of bigoted assholes, who are usually the ones who care enough to argue the point.

I will share my 2 cents however. It is very important to understand how a belief in god(s) may affect one's life, as it is a fundamentally philosophical underpinning for all of one's own ideas and thoughts. For all the dozens of examples I could write out by my own reason, a belief in god(s) whether divine, or alien, or extra-dimensional, essentially boils down to one principle: The belief that people are the center of the universe.

Don't forget that you're only comfortable because you're reaping the benefits of your ancestors. The earth will kill you if you step outside of human society. Shelter, entertainment, electricity, clothing, available food, running water, sources shared information, language - these are all our inventions. And when you have conquered the earth, don't forget to look into space and contemplate whether or not humanity truly has a privileged position in existence. To think that we are special because the universe declares it so, is both hubris and conceit of the most perverted kind.

The refutation of Epicurus' Riddle is easy.

God does not owe us what is good for us. Justice is doing what one is entitled to do. Injustice is doing what one is not entitled to do. The One Who created all things, is entitled to do anything. :)

>>1312345

>I wouldn't care to speculate as to what the term theist implies

That's fair, and likewise it would be disingenuous on my part to try to speculate what being an atheist implies (it doesn't make very much sense to relate an atheist in the fashion of Dawkins to a Buddhist atheist).

At the same time, what theism/atheism implies - not as a blanket label, because that’s impossible, but on a case by case basis with the person you're engaging with – is the question that matters more to me. Neither atheism nor theism inherently imply any sort of value system, and what actually interests me is the ethical values that a person holds, and subsequently whether that person is actually a good human being, or just a shit heel.

Take the Atheist Apocalypse comic for example, which represents an optimistic take on what Science, Progress, Reason, and Equality will bring. But there’s nothing to stop these tools from being twisted towards nefarious purposes – Brave New World shows a godless world where Science, Progress, Reason (not so much Equality, since there’s a caste system, though everyone’s happy and healthy) have been pursued for the sake of “civilization” yet not for people. There’s nothing inherently good about pursuing Science, Progress, Reason, and Equality, unless it’s pursued ethically.

When it comes to American Christianity, I find it infuriating that there’s this constant overemphasis on being “saved” and going to heaven. Honestly, I think it’s a gimmick to entice people, and it doesn’t inspire people to be ethical (or else, it motivates become to be ethical on a primitive basis of punishment/reward behavioural psychology, which is just pathetic). Thankfully, the Christians I personally know aren’t this shallow, but it bothers me that people might actually think this way. The allure of living life in “salvation” with the supposed reality of billions having not made the cut would make me want seek a post-life martyrdom. “You’re not letting people into heaven on the basis of something as whimsical as belief? Well God, I was raised to having empathy with the downtrodden and solidarity with the underdogs, so I’m joining my brothers and sisters in pain and suffering.”

Mind you, I’m under no illusion that I’ll nonchalantly accept eternal pain and suffering that easy, but with whatever willpower I can summon, I would choose this as my fate because I consider it the ethical thing to do. I kind of respect Norse mythology in the same way – you get all the mortals summoned to Valhalla to fight one last good fight with the good gods against that asshole Loki and his giant crew. No salvation, but you go out knowing you fought on the right side.

This scenario of course hypothesizes that God is a petty asshole, which I don’t think to be the case, as with the characteristics attributed to the OP. God makes the most sense to me if I understand Him as not being fully omnipotent – although I wouldn’t say that’s reason to negate worship to him – we can respect people that we depend on even if they sometimes fail. That being said, no one said God has to make sense (which is why I entertain the idea of him being autistic/incoherent).

>The One Who created all things, is entitled to do anything

It's this kind of thinking that once made me wonder whether God saw us as some sort of SimUniverse 7000 game. "Hey, I think I'm going to release a plague on the planet earth right now. That should make things interesting."

>>1312406
>Justice is doing what one is entitled to do
>entitled
I don't think you know what this word means.
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Looks like you still haven't refuted the 'God's a dickass' part

>>1312406
It's entitled to do anything, including ending needless suffering, give us full knowledge of its existence without ambiguity, and make living, conscious animals not need to feed on other living, conscious animals?

It hasn't done that? So it's a worthless asshole.

>>1312406
Being benevolent as well omnipotent means nothing if not the ability and willingness to prevent evil, so no, you didn't actually refute anything.

kept the original size, but got rid of the last part, which was the only problem i had with the original.

>>1312435

"I’m under no illusion that I’ll nonchalantly accept eternal pain and suffering that easy, but with whatever willpower I can summon, I would choose this as my fate because I consider it the ethical thing to do"

Why? I think I understand you saying that you feel like unless you *earned* your way out, you would deserve pain, but why would you choose it forthright?
Allow me to tell you something: There is nothing "right" or "wrong" about a snake eating a mouse. There is nothing right or wrong about water dripping over a boulder for thousands of years. There is nothing right or wrong about an infant human being born.

Perhaps you understand this already, but all values- every single one, ever- is relative and transient; functions of time and place; "Right" an "wrong" are not absolute concepts. Maybe you'd agree with the norse gods' motivations, but in all of existence they are no more correct than Loki.

By analogy, you'd be the equivalent of a small beetle joining the larger beetles to fight the spiders. None of the parties involved is a god.

"That being said, no one said God has to make sense"
If anyone is ever going to give justification to their beliefs, sense is the single necessary thing to make. No matter how far-out it is, you will be granted at least some ears by saying you believe in something that makes at least some sense. But to believe in something for which you have no reason to justify your understanding, to say 'nobody said it had to make sense' - wrong. Because everybody with a sense of reason you talk to will require that your beliefs - no matter how crazy they be - be more than just wishful thinking.

-- As a personal question- this is not ripping on you- which god(s) do you believe in and why?

-- Secondly, do you think that if you were born in a different country, say India, that you would believe just as strongly in an entirely different set of beliefs about divinities?