What should the punishment be (if any) for picking Spiderman over Batman?

Give us your learned opinion as to what fair, just punishment (if any), you feel we should dole out to those who pick the wrong super-hero.
Tell us what punishment should be meted out if people pick the wrong super-hero:
a. Batman or Spiderman. (We all know that Batman is superior to Spiderman! My family raised me to believe this, so it must be true.)
b. Aquaman or The Green Lantern.
c. Jesus or Mohammad.

I think that a STERN REPRIMAND (in writing no less!) from the local comic book club that you belong to would be the appropriate punishment. They deserve no less! However, obviously any punishment that’s more severe than this would be unfair, don’t you agree, since the evidence for each super-hero is suspect at best?

Or should this be one of the LEAST important topics (which invisible super-hero we happen to pick, out of the thousands out there) in our entire lives, what with world hunger, disease, etc. being such a big problem today? So perhaps NO punishment should await those who choose the wrong super-hero?

Tell us your opinion.

 

How I wish that this topic was in a subforum where I didn't feel complied not to write stupid stuff.

Very well, I bet it derails soon.

 

Tell me, what should the punishment be for deliberate flame bait?

Waitm better question! What is the punishment for picking neither Jesus nor Mohammed, and then being a raging prick to everyone else who does make a decision?

 

So how should we best punish people who pick the 'wrong' superhero (Superman or Jesus or Thor, etc.)? I'm thinking this question is too uncomfortable for you (a theist I assume?) to answer? Is it FAIR to torture them worse than Saddam's worst torture, for picking the wrong super-hero (say, for picking Mohammad instead of Jesus)? There is as much EVIDENCE for Thor as there is for Jesus (or Mohammad, etc.) being real.

 

I'll assume that you DO feel that Jesus' eternal torture forever (which is worse than Hitler's treatment of the Jews - he "only" shortened their pre-afterlife lives by an average of maybe 45 years) for picking, say, Krishna is very very appropriate punishment for picking the wrong super-hero.

If Ghandi picked Zeus, or Thor (see Avenger's movie), or Krishna, is it FAIR that he suffer a fate far far worse than a child-molester who repents and converts to Christianity (and who does lead say a very a virtuous life from then on, but was still a child-molester)? For once, could you answer the question?

 

No, I believe that your intent is dishonest, and that all you ar edoing is flame baiting people - and I believe that I spelled it out in English. Amazing how you get THAT from what I clearly stated. Of course, you are not here to discuss - so what I say is clearly irrelevant.

Now, I wonder where all the atheists are who have, hitherto, been so aanxious to caste out the T word? Odd? Their silence is truely odd.

 

Hold your horses. You assume incorrectly, I am a theological non-cognitivist. I don't believe anything happens after we die, I don't think "deserving" has any impact on what happens after death and I don't think what is fair has any impact on what happens at any time.

All I meant was that I was going to argue Green Lantern over Aquaman if it wasn't for the fact that I didn't want to derail the thread. However, I then hypothesised that this thread was going to derail soon enough anyway, and when that happens, my arguments would not spoil an interesting thread.

 

Yes, we should all be on the forum every minute of the day, checking subforums instead of the much more convenient 'subscribed threads', so that we can answer in under 2 hours in order to satisfy you.

And anyway, as I've told you before, people are generally much more likely to call out a stupid comment as a stupid comment if that stupid comment is also essentially attacking them. This OP is not attacking me so the chances of me pointing out its stupidity is much lower. Just like, for example, if you were to make a stupid thread designed to attack atheists, you would see mostly atheists responding, and relatively few fellow religious people pointing out that you're being stupid.

 

Ok, so which is worse?
A. "Flame baiting" (although I disagree with your assessment of that).
or
B. Savagely TORTURING, for eternity, Mother Theresa if she, just say, converted to Buddhism a month before she died?

If you write anything other than "B, obviously", then I'd question the moral quality of the texts of your belief system. Or I'd at least say that your PRIORITIES (like Jesus building a chair and going fishing, etc., but NOT speaking out against slavery nor against killing of homosexuals, etc.!) are out of whack compared to modern Secular Humanism.

It's probably NOT that your texts are terribly terribly immoral, it's just that people like Richard Dawkins are so much MORE MORAL than that. So I'm not putting you down (necessarily), but just showing you a clearly more moral alternative.

 

Well said. Thanks.

 

death.

at the hands of an arch-villain.

 

This is what Jesus prescribes, too. Death (well worse than that it can be argued....eternal torture), and since he approves of slavery in the bible no less than 3 times I WOULD kind of call Jesus an "arch-villain". You are a Christian, no?

 

you're confused over the 3 hells, but that's not uncommon. there's Hades (the grave), the pit (satan's domain), and the lake of fire (the destruction of the soul for all eternity-God's garbage dump).

 

To be fair. Jesus and Mohammad are on two different levels......Christians think that jesus is god incarnate and should be worshipped. Muslims believe that Mohammad is a prophet, but do not worship him. He is more like John the Babtist than jesus.

 

if you think Muslims don't worship Mohamad, try drawing a cartoon of him & Jesus and see who comes for your head.

 

No. Their reverence for him goes VIRTUALLY to the level of "worship". Let me prove that to you: I'll ask our Muslims friends to answer this question: "If, repeat if, hypothetically Mohammad had sex with a little girl when she was 6 years-old (pleasured his man-hood on her thighs), and when she was 9 year-old (sexual intercourse), when he was in his 50's, is he immoral?" You will probably be surprised at the responses they give.
If they'd say "of course he was immoral if, repeat if, he indeed did that" then I'd say you are correct, but they virtually always DEFEND pedophilia....only drugs, alcohol, mental illness or religion can get a sane person to do that.
They, like Christians, FEAR the unknown of death so terribly much and have bought into the most absurd beliefs that reality/morality mean nothing to them (in relation to the FEAR, that is.) They are well-intended, but, unlike most modern Secular Humanists, are clearly irrational.

 

The fact that the "moderate" Muslims never stand up to the non-moderates by saying "it's ok to draw pictures of Mohammad, go right ahead, Mohammad was wrong if he implied to kill people who blaspheme Islam", tells us all we need to know about "moderate" Muslims. Is a "moderate" Muslim an EX-Muslim?

 

That is because it's against Islam to have drawings of any prophet. They consider it to be idolism. Mohammad ordered that his image should never be shown because it takes away from worship of God. They consider christians to be idol worshipers because they bow down to pictures of jesus and worship them the same way they worship the man himself. Especially catholics, who do the same thing to statues of the saints.

 

That's not entirely true. Islam bans the worship of idols sure, but the image of the Prophet in a non-religious context (say used for historical education purposes) is not idol worship.

It's only in the last few centuries that the really strict interpretation has become common place.

 

Mind-control for those who don't want to think for themselves.

 

if they really have a problem with idolatry, they have a lot of explaining to do over kissing that moon rock that sits in the middle of Mecca.

Muslims pray to an idol and put a mortal man on par with God. by what is written in the Koran, they should all be put to the sword.

 

No where in the Quran is Mohammad portrayed as God's equal. The fact that you think he is proves that you've never even picked up a quran, let alone read one.

 

he negotiated over dogs on God's behalf. you're confusing theory with practice.

 

Just want to mention that according to the bible, god DOES negotiate. We see it in Genesis and in Job, to bring up two quick examples.

Your theory is not god's practice.

 

links or it didn't happen.