Wow, I can't believe Kent/a/ro Miura ripped-off the Sup Forums genius that is Jack Chick

Wow, I can't believe Kent/a/ro Miura ripped-off the Sup Forums genius that is Jack Chick

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ-P97PgxA
nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/
sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
youtu.be/TKZ-P97PgxA?t=1m
science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5673/965.full
nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect
youtube.com/watch?v=TKjKZ5RzT9s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Man Christians are really depraved. If they didn’t have to worry about going to hell they’d be raping and killing without a second thought. They truly have no actual morals of their own.

missing the comic. Fedoras everyone

Is it bad that this is what I think when Christians talk about morals? Also why people are so fucked up on the inside.

Thank goodness for the law

There are no laws saying you can't become a god user

People who only do good out of fear of retribution aren’t really doing good at all.

They may do good without being good.

They're doing good, but they don't mean well
Feeding a poor person because you don't want to get smitten still feeds a poor person regardless of how you feel about it

>Is it bad that this is what I think when Christians talk about morals?

No, I feel the same. I don't want to hurt people, and I don't hurt people. I strive not to steal or cheat or lie, though I'm not claiming I'm claiming I'm perfect and never mess up.

If someone is telling me I need God or else I'd be doing bad things, it's really strange to me. It makes me think they're bad people who want to do bad things and need some external fear to hold them back.

This is what I always hated about missionaries. If Nike sent agents to some poor country and built them shelter and gave them food, but said the whole thing was actually to sell these people shoes they'd be condemned. But if a church does it and says all their "good work" was to sell the people on their beliefs, it's a good thing?

How about just helping people who need it and not see their suffering as an opportunity to push your shit on them? Your example might even inspire them to join on their own because they'd see you're actually good people.

It's not like they're itching to go raping and murdering with the only thing keeping them from doing so is religion.

It's the logical extreme when you look at morality without the governance of a higher power.
>If there is no higher power, then it is ultimately humans who create morality.
This creates a bunch of issues because morality is then subject to major critiques
ie; how do we determine if something is moral or immoral? Who has final say?
Say I want killing people to be moral
>That's illegal!
Ok, but laws aren't inherently moral or immoral. And there's been plenty of historical laws that are definitely regarded as immoral.
>But a lot of us say it's not! 100 vs 1 shows which one is actually moral.
So then is morality just what the majority believes to be right?
In which case, what about countries that kill gays, circumcise women, [insert other thing we dislike]? The majority of them believe that's moral and proper.

So what, is morality just cultural? Which culture is right and which is wrong? Why?


This is why the religious just defer to a higher power, it's a lot easier and a lot simpler then having to critique morality on its own.

But christfags are always against utilitarianism

This. Well said, user.

>ie; how do we determine if something is moral or immoral? Who has final say?
Common sense? Do not do unto others what you don't wish upon you, or stuff like that

...

>This creates a bunch of issues because morality is then subject to major critiques
>ie; how do we determine if something is moral or immoral? Who has final say?
It is people either way. People create the religion, interpret it and then if a majority support it the morals are institutionalized.

The difference is if we remove religious doctrine we can have honest discussions about values and cost benefit analysis. With religion the morals are instituted from very far past humans and are harder to change

...

Yeah but it's it's hard to consider your morals aren't influenced by Christian or religious doctrine since our morals are made from condition brought on by our family/community. And communities were conditioned by government and for centuries big religion groups were part of or CONTROLLED the government.

So yes you can say you've never felt the interest to cheat or steal or kill, but how can you say you would turn out morally the exact same if you lived in a community that did not have any religious morals embedded into them in the past centuries?

...

This.

...

>what about countries that kill gays, circumcise women, [insert other thing we dislike]

...you mean the ones that are highly religious and have little to no separation of church and state?

...

>he needs god to know what right and wrong is

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

God didn't need God to know what He made was good. He SAW it was good. Therefore, goodness comes from outside of God

Common sense in the Aztec Empire was that it was an honor to have your heart ripped out or your skin flayed for the gods.

If society collapsed, common sense would say I have every right to shoot you, steal your stuff and rape your sister if I'm better armed and you have stuff I want.

Living in a stable society for so long has left fedoras thinking their "morality" is intrinsic in humanity and not just a product of law and order.

Why?

You're missing the point.

>Common Sense, Do Unto Others, ect

Who's common sense? Yours? The scum-sucking Arab who thinks it's common sense to blow himself up? The turbo-feminist who wants to castrate all men? What makes your philosophy any better than theirs?

You haven't established authority on the matter.

...

I don't think missionaries charge them for the Bibles they give out, nor kick a person out of their soup kitchen if they don't wanna pray with them.

I mean yeah they wanna spread Christianity, but they're not asking the people at the missionary for anything (except their Sunday mornings).

...

I just want some comfy Jack Chick storytime, bros.

>ie; how do we determine if something is moral or immoral? Who has final say?
It's for this Kant made the categorical imperative and it works

There's been plenty of atrocities from non religious countries as well user

Then why are the most stable societies in the western world currently the least religious?

These brainwashing comics are depressing.

>The scum-sucking Arab who thinks it's common sense to blow himself up? The turbo-feminist who wants to castrate all men?

And here we see the christfag revealing his true morals.

Okay, but the things you just listed off are almost entirely practiced by highly religious countries.

I really don't care why, that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Kant's philosophy isn't fool-proof though, there's definitely grey zone in his categorical imperative. Who to Lie and Tell the truth to being the first of the critiques.

You just gave an obscenely religious society as your first example and that somehow isn't relevant?

But were they always the least religious?

I mean I think it's legit impossible to find a modern country that doesn't have religion influence in their roots/history.

It's pretty much for people who are incapable or don't want to think on their own. Not to say subscribing to the ideas of a religion inherently means you fall into that, just that the primary purpose is for the people who simply can't think that far or don't feel like it.

If you spend enough time thinking, you should be able to find satisfactory conclusions on your own.

If you're talking about China, China is very, very religious. The fact that Communism acted against organized religion doesn't mean they were hardcore rationalists. China is highly superstitious and has always been.

Does it matter if they were previously religious if there are nations that are currently religious and not on track to become more stable?
Draw parallels between REM and stability

spiritual =/= religious

>spiritual =/= religious
The only difference is that there's no organization behind it. Fortune tellers are gigantic in China, and there's a whole slew of beliefs like Feng Shui ingrained in people's heads. In any case China has never embraced rationalism and science as wholly as the West did.

America is so fucked about sex and gender because of how stupidly religious it is.

This is now a Simpsons vore thread.

...

But law and order are human constructs, as with morality and religion. In all cases, it's symbolic manifestation of intrinsic psychology. What's defined as "good", "moral" or "virtuous" are all just examples of selfless behaviour, which your brain is hard-wired to reward you for doing. On the flipside, "evil", "immoral" or "sinful" behaviour is just selfishness, and your brain is hard-wired to become depressed and/or anxious if you keep indulging in them.

It's an evolutionary necessity - if human brains didn't work that way, we'd have never even made it to the stone age, let alone beyond it.

...

Its always disturbed me at a fundamental level that the only reason, the *only* reason a Christian doesn't go around raping and murdering is because they are scared of the punishment.

Thats not morality. Not doing the wrong thing out of fear and dread doesn't make you a good person.

Then to have the audacity to attempt to turn it around and say I'm the "amoral" one because I can do whatever I want without the fear of Hell - we'll, you're right, I can elect to do whatever I want, and I elect of my own choosing not to be an asshole. You aren't choosing anything, you're just scared to death of sky daddy.

The Golden Rule existed for who knows how many thousands of years in human culture before Christianity came along, it'll survive long after the religion is a faded memory.

The difference is that it's cultural, which is why it seems like it lacks organization. It's not lead by any group, so it seems less structured, but is based on years and years of various traditions.

The real difference between China and the West is that in the west organized religion shaped spirituality. The religion dominated society died out because America's diverse history, but the traditional stuff still kinda lingers (sex is bad, but violence is fine)

is he wrong though?

>rationalism and science
are you talking about the science that says gender is spectrum for humans? Does that sound rational to you.

Only if you equate gender to mean sex

i don't but nu "science" does

That's humanity, user. Don't try and pretend you're anything special.

nuscience doesn't either

Was this guy really a Jesuit priest, or was he full of shit?

pseudoscience is not science? Science so far says gender is binary.

oh no?
youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ-P97PgxA
then why is it catching on? why is it actual articles are being written about this crap
nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/
sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

>so fucked about sex and gender because of how stupidly religious it is
And yet the people that push for puritanism and antisexuality right now are in the far left: i.e. atheists.

pseudoscience and science often blur together whenever politics gets involved.

yes

Because the people in power are liberals and science is not an independent phenomenon that gets money out of thin air. Liberals have controlled academia for a long time now and they decided what gets funded, what gets published, what gets researched in the first place.

That's because atheist Americans, being Americans, are still retarded

The SCUM Manifesto and Iran beg to differ

>literally 'no true scotman'
And here I thought you atheists didn't like fallacies...?

no you assholes are missing the point
None of those things, no liberal cuck soyboy, is saying that gender == sex
They are saying that gender =/= sex and that gender and sex are different things
My fucking god, it's not even about politics or social justice warriors or whatever, fuck

you're not wrong but this doesn't bold well for the future of science and rationalism.

Humanism was a mistake.

You do realize the only reason you believe raping and killing to be wrong is because you live in a Christian society, right?

Because most of those countries ended up gaining a tech advantage in weaponry and warfare and used it pretty much conquer most of the other nations and use up their resources while playing the friendly devil to get on their good sides. Basically most of our modern day wealth can be attributed to it. The Spanish destroyed the Aztec empire, Europe made Africa the mess it is today, and everyone knows the dark shit that went on in America, to both the natives and the slaves we brought in. Then you just made sure that people kept fighting to make less threats to you. Like how the moment the union and confederacy were a thing, europeon nations were already getting embassies ready because having a rival country to keep the union in better check and weaken both as a whole was way better for them. To attribute that to being less religious makes no sense, especially when a lot of the west didn't really get less religious till the mid 20th century.

i provide proof and you stick your head in the mud and call other people assholes. Kys you worthless faggot.

please just read the words that I'm typing
gender =/= sex
this is what they are saying when they come up with terms like cisgender or gender-fluid

You believe that unfortunately if you watched the damn video they clearly don't

There are still only 2 genders anything else is fucker looking for attention

>this doesn't bold well for the future of science and rationalism.
It hasn't for a long time already, user. Classical positivists and rationalists in the past century cashed in on the theory that just fostering science will solve all problems from the most natural to the most abstract, and that people only have to be shown the way in the form of facts and knowledge to make them good citizens -- that's what democracy was counting on, too.

But the fact is, and scientists have ignored it for too long, that people in general don't actually like science. Because science, contrary to popular belief, is not about getting answers, but about making questions over and over again. The day scientists "have all the answers", it's the day science ends; and people don't like unansweered questions on top of the ones they already have; they don't want an expert to appear on TV and say that 'maybe perhaps if the conditions are within margin of so and so there's a 15% chance in a 40% frame...' People don't like that.

"If you're not going to cure my cancer, then why do I have to listen to you?" is most people's mentality as they continue smoking. Scientists have been barking at the wrong tree for centuries.

they fucking define cisgender for you and post it on screen in big impact text
exactly at 1 minute
youtu.be/TKZ-P97PgxA?t=1m

What I find weird about Chick is that he had this boner toward Israel and Jews yet he still depicted them as antichrists who were going to hell.

Okay, fine, not my point
My point is that this asshole ()
Doesn't realize what he's saying
Not because he believes that there are only two genders, not because he says gender and sex are the same thing
But because he erroneously said that he doesn't think that gender == sex
That's literally what I'm trying to fucking say and I cannot explain it any further

>'maybe perhaps if the conditions are within margin of so and so there's a 15% chance in a 40% frame...' People don't like that.
>"If you're not going to cure my cancer, then why do I have to listen to you?"]
im ashamed i used to be one of those people

That's pretty much all american evangelicals, though.

Samefagging, but FUCK
never before have I been so plainly and clearly right despite facing opposition
Am I being trolled or is this actually the state of right wing Sup Forums?

>he thinks he's derailing with belly pics
Nigga I'm getting a quality fap while having a quality thought provoking Internet discussion. Thanks!

It is the will of God that the Jews own Israel. Doesn't mean we have to let them own America though.

It's not a fallacy if it's true tho

listen you ignorant fuck, if you actually pay attention and read science articles you'll understand the line between them gets increasingly blurred.
With scientists writing this
science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5673/965.full
nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
or Bill Nye and his "Abacus of Sex.
Thats right they want to redefine sex.
>implying im a conservative
yeah because you have to be a right wing jackass to hate idiots.

>this is what they are saying when they come up with terms like cisgender or gender-fluid
not being cisgender literally means you're born in the wrong body
that's either mental illness or being a fucking stupid attention whore

the whole concept behind it is fucking retarded

...

Language runs on convention, dummy. Words have no inherent meaning.

Are you just reading headlines?
None of the sources that you are picking say that sex == gender
Watch the bill nye video
at no point does he say "sex and gender are the same thing"
his "abacus of sex" doesn't redefine sex

what are you even saying?
maybe somehow I'm the idiot
please directly quote from literally any of your sources where anyone says that gender and sex are the same thing

Not necessarily
You can make that argument for modern language, but inherently, certain sounds fit certain things better
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect

Most societies are against murder, and most modern ones against rape. Christianity isn't special in that regard.

>abuse your children
>go to heaven
>suffer no earthly punishment in the meantime
Is this shit satire?

No user, this is legitimately how Christians think

It's by Jack Chick, so no.
Christian Fundamentalists do think this, among other things listed in this thread (You can't be good without God, If you have gay sex you are evil, Israel is our greatest ally, etc.). They believe it with such zeal, and declare it with such passion, that to try and dissuade them from it is a fruitless effort even in the best of circumstances.
This creates a rather ironic situation; they have a zealous attitude and iron clad faith of the Christians of yore, yet they let "Evil" fester in the hearts of the people, doing little but protesting and yelling. They claim to be doing the Lord's work, yet have accomplished nothing lasting in the over 100 years Evangelicalism has been around.They are simultaneously the most faithful to the Christian doctrine and the largest parody of the thing.

>None of the sources that you are picking say that sex == gender
Listen my point goes to all the way back here. I know you understand the difference but in those articles its painfully clear that they use the two terms interchangeably.
>The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.
>These discoveries do not sit well in a world in which sex is still defined in binary terms.
and here's the second part of the video
youtube.com/watch?v=TKjKZ5RzT9s
go to:37
>Gender is like sex its on a spectrum.

>Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.
In an article where they talk about intersex people
Not in an article where they redefine sex to mean gender
user, just read past the headline

>go to:37
or how about you just go to the start of the video where he says
>But there are people whose sex and gender are not the same
in reference to transgender people whose sex is [x] and whose gender isn't [x]

user I'm telling you
for the last time
""""""""""""""""""""""""nu-science"""""""""""""""""""""""" is not redefining [SEX] to mean *GENDER*

whoops forgot my image

Christianity isn't particularly against killing.
The Ten Commandments are wedged right between God slaughtering all the Egyptians for no reason, and God punishing the jews because they left some people alive during their genocide of the Canaanites.

Are they or are they not using the terms sex and gender interchangeably?
is bill nye not saying that Sex and gender are both on a spectrum?
The article itself is asking us to open our minds and consider that sex is a spectrum how is that not trying to redefine sex and gender.