this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024

379 points (92.0% liked)

Greentext

4390 readers

1024 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

379

Anon tries to keep his hands busy (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -32 points 5 months ago (3 children)

extremely religious so I know I shouldn't be fapping at all.

Correlation does not equal causation. Being religious doesn't cause the belief that fapping is wrong. Being Christian causes it. Being Christian also causes being religious, but not the other way around. So it's a common cause leading to correlation, not an actual causal relationship. And it isn't a logical deduction either.

OP should have been studying philosophy instead of fapping, maybe then he wouldn't make logical mistakes which inadvertently erase the diversity of religious experiences.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You're confusing correlation does not equal causation with some other logical fallacy, and making a few others in the process. Probably denying the antecedent, but I can't be arsed to look up the specific one.

If you think Christianity is uniquely bad that's probably because you haven't learned enough about other religions.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Ok, which religion is masturbation positive though? Islam, Judaism, Buddism, ... ?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Looks at Zeus

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Unitarian-Universalists don't have a problem at all with masturbation, and they encourage you to explore and accept your body. That sounds pretty masturbation positive to me!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Many Protestant churches in Northern and Western Europe and some Protestant churches in Northern America and in Australia/New Zealand see masturbation as not a sin.

Hinduism: Seeking bodily pleasure is only considered condemned for those who dedicate themselves to chastity. There are no references in Hindu religious texts to suggest that masturbation itself desecrates sexual purity. For those who are dedicated to chastity, this sin is absolutely minor, and can be absolved either by taking a bath, or by worshipping the Sun, or by saying three prayers.

Buddhism: The most used formulation of Buddhist ethics are the Five Precepts. These precepts take the form of voluntary personal undertakings, not divine mandate or instruction. The third precept is "to refrain from committing sexual misconduct".[220] However, different schools of Buddhism have differing interpretations of what constitutes sexual misconduct.

Wicca, like other religions, has adherents with a spectrum of views ranging from conservative to liberal. Wicca is generally undogmatic, and nothing in Wiccan philosophy prohibits masturbation. On the contrary, Wiccan ethics, summed up in the Wiccan Rede "An it harm none, do as thou wilt", are interpreted by many as endorsing responsible sexual activity of all varieties. This is reinforced in the Charge of the Goddess, a key piece of Wiccan literature, in which the Goddess says, "all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals".[235]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation

This is a tiny fraction of the religions that sometimes or always allow masturbation. I'm not seeing any indigenous American, Australian, or Austronesian religions in this article.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

TIL, thanks for the link and excerpt.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Thanks for keeping an open mind. A lot of people are taught from childhood that Abrahamism is representative of all religion, and they stick to that even when the truth is in front of their face. This state of affairs was manufactured, it didn't used to be like this. People used to be a lot more accepting of religions they didn't understand. In fact, before the Roman Empire, most people believed in the gods of every religion, and that was normal. And I can also assure you the ancient Greeks didn't have Christian reservations about sexual pleasure. They had their own set of rules, but it was a different set.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I know you're all excited because you just understood the "correlation does not equal causation" principle, but "being religious" generally means being christian in english and I think you are just refusing to see that.

[+] [email protected] -24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The only reason for that is the many genocides perpetrated against members of other religions. Especially in places like Australia and the Americas where Christians were bloodthirsty invaders. By equating the two, all you're doing is continuing the work of conquistadores and other murderous colonisers. It's factually wrong, but more importantly, it's morally wrong. There's no reason to act this disgracefully.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Europeans regularly killed other Europeans, who were Christian. The natives could have met them at the shore with a stack of bibles and the colonizers still would have slaughtered them.

[+] [email protected] -17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It sounds like you're saying religious genocide doesn't matter because it would have happened anyway.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I'm saying it was European colonial genocide, religion was a secondary or tertiary motivation, and yes it would have happened anyway

[+] [email protected] -11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't care about motivation or how a bunch of murderers felt, I care about the victims of genocide and the loss of massive religious diversity. Don't you care about that too? Or is the only thing that matters to you what the conquistadores "intended" while they were raping girls and destroying villages?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't care about motivation

Really? This you?

The only reason for that is the many genocides perpetrated against members of other religions. Especially in places like Australia and the Americas where Christians were bloodthirsty invaders.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Ah, I see the problem. You read me say "reason" and assumed I meant reason as in motivation, when I actually meant reason as in cause, because you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grader. Then you proceeded to derail this conversation with a pointless tangent about motivations that nobody else cares about.

Here, I'll give an educational example of the word reason as in cause: "The reason the beanstalk grew that night, was because Jack's mother threw the magic beans out the window into the garden."

See? Reason as in cause. You just can't read properly.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's not a cause lmao. Europeans were going to violently colonize the Americas, Africa, and Australia whether they followed Jesus, Buddha, or no one at all. It's not like the Bible said "hey guys, those people over there don't have guns, and they've got lots of gold".

Gb2 r/atheism with your nonsense