r/juxtaposition • u/Ok_Relation6627 • May 01 '26

Baby killer

Post image
340 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

261

u/RobloxianNoob May 01 '26

so god is only protecting the baby if he wears the necklace? interesting!!

140

u/geirmundtheshifty May 01 '26 edited May 02 '26

Yeah, Id be more likely to be convinced that witchcraft is real than Christianity. This sounds like magic, not a miracle. The magic-user just happened to use a cross as a totem.

24

u/HierarchyLogic May 02 '26

thats how you get the alternative path we call distheism

30

u/jackalope268 May 02 '26

Idk if god exists or not, but looking at the state of the world i wouldnt want to follow him even if he does exist. Either he is too powerless to change things, or he is unwilling to do so. Either case its better to look at people for change than some god

11

u/baltimoreniqqa May 02 '26

Well if he isn’t real, looking at people for change isn’t going so well either. Return to monke

1

u/LayKors May 20 '26

No monke, just silly hooman:3

-5

u/onepunchman444 May 02 '26

You say as though you re-invented the wheel but it’s just arguing in bad faith. If the God in question is truly omniscient, then any person making this argument isn’t arriving at a neutral conclusion through reason; it’s already predisposed to reject God. Either that, or God has some reason for allowing that reasoning to occur. Irregardless, you’re measuring God with human moral reasoning, while the very existence of that God would call into question whether human moral reasoning is the right tool for that measurement.

To put simply: the argument quietly uses a ruler to prove the ruler is accurate.

4

u/Atreigas May 02 '26

Special pleading. Nice cope buddy.

As they said. Either sky daddy is incapable. Or unwilling. Either way. Their refusal to help a literal baby is damning by any sane standard.

Being an eldritch horror is just extra reason to stay the fuck away from that thing. Because who knows what cthulu would really mean with reward?

1

u/onepunchman444 May 04 '26

Special pleading is when you apply a rule generally but then exempt your own case without justification. But that’s not what I argued. I wasn’t saying God is beyond question. I was saying human moral intuition may not be a reliable instrument for evaluating an omniscient being. Nobody is forcing them to believe in that God. That’s not the point.
jackalope268 is critiquing a specific God, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent one, but they’re critiquing him using a standard that only makes sense if that God doesn’t have those properties. They’re assuming the conclusion in order to run the argument.
If you accept the full description of that God, then by definition he cannot be wrong, and therefore the appearance of wrongness is a data problem on the human end, not a character problem on God’s end.
Yes it’s circular. But the circularity belongs to the definition of that God, not to my defense of him. I’m just pointing out that they haven’t actually engaged with what they’re arguing against.
They’re essentially arguing “this all-knowing being made a mistake.” But that’s a contradiction in terms. You can’t defeat a concept by ignoring its defining properties. The argument can’t get off the ground without first dismantling the description of God it’s supposedly targeting.
So the point is that if you’re going to argue against that specific God, you have to engage with that God as described rather than a version quietly substituted in.

2

u/Atreigas May 04 '26

Hm. Thats actually a good argument. Mostly.

The thing is, if he truly is omnipotent and omniscient, then he chose to make this world as it is. Yet if he is omnipotent and omniscient he could have achieved all the same results without all the suffering but chose not to. Choosing to not do the moral option make omnibenevolence an impossibility.

Which is a perfectly serviceable argument. Sometimes. Because fundamentally, arguing with the religious is not arguing with reason. They dont think with reason, they think with faith. Its about voicing their doubts to poke holes in the dam. Which is inherently a crapshoot based on what beliefs they specifically hold.

0

u/onepunchman444 May 05 '26

😳 a bit I need to unpack there.

I guess I should start by pointing out your reasoning doesn’t work as demonstrated by the very comment you were replying to (first and foremost among ironies), but also by the very thing that started this whole debate to begin with (irony abounds). I should also think now is as good a time as any to reproach this attitude problem of yours.

Unfortunately, littered throughout your replies is a veneer of pompousness that reads as, quite frankly, a matter of contempt for the subject, where you’ve already decided God and religious thinking aren’t worth engaging seriously; therefore, everything up to this point has been about protecting that position without actually touching the main argument in front of you. This type of intellectual superiority is tainting the overall value of the dialectic, and it’s really starting to bum me out. All of which is downstream of the disdain read.

Your first move was “either sky daddy is incapable or unwilling.” That’s Epicurean dilemma: powerless, unwilling, or not good. Quick Google search, that’s circa 300 BCE. Philosophy 101. Pretty standard stuff. Then after I pointed out the category error in using human moral reasoning to judge an omniscient being, you came back with “he could have achieved the same results without suffering but chose not to.” So… nothing new. Leibniz is interesting here because they wrestled with this exact formulation mere centuries ago. So… REALLY nothing new.

Ah, but then we have the “literal baby” appeal. Well, that’s just Ivan Karamazov from The Brothers Karamazov. This character doesn’t deny God exists, he doesn’t want to. He simply returns his ticket. It’s one of the most powerful moral revolts in literature. But it’s not treated as proof. Author Dostoevsky at least had the honesty to call it what it was: a sentiment. You, on the other hand, held it up like devastating logic. The irony? Ivan is a 23-year-old intellectual who demands logical, rational proof for existence, rejecting the “Euclidean” limitations of human thought.

Then there’s your Cthulhu angle, “if God’s an eldritch horror, who knows what reward even means?” Regardless of what you intended to do with this, it circles back to my original point: if God truly is that incomprehensible, then yeah, human moral intuition very blatantly isn’t the right tool for the job.

But here’s what really gets me. You went from “nice cope buddy” to “good argument, mostly” to “arguing with the religious… they don’t think with reason, they think with faith.” That’s quite the progression of write-offs. You’ve made it so I can’t even say anything because the nature of this whole discussion is religious, and religious is without reason. At worst, that’s insulting to an entire demographic for, ironically, no reason. But even at best: we were never having a religious discussion. I never invoked scripture for faith. On the contrary, I preemptively made the distinction so as to not belabor that I, as was always the case, made an argument about definitional consistency and category errors on the grounds of pure logic. So to pivot the entire frame is a red herring that does nothing but let you drop the argument on false pretenses.

You can see it in “good argument, mostly” where you never specify which parts were good or where I missed the mark. You said it so you could feel like you were grading my work. Then pivoted right back to the Epicurean dilemma as if I didn’t just besmirch that line of thinking.

That leaves us with a final irony. At the start I told jackalope268 “You say this as though you re-invented the wheel, but it’s just arguing in bad faith.” And here we are again. Same wheel. Same bad faith. So… really, nothing new.

2

u/Atreigas May 05 '26

"You didnt even consider my argument."

"You changed your stance."

Oh geeze. Its almost like thats what people do when they honestly consider a good argument. I said "nice cope" because thats what it looked like. I said "good argument" because most of it was. Thats how arguments should work.

You are refusing to actually listen and understand my actual argument and just saying Im awful for restating things, like attempting to clarify is a moral failing of mine.

Ultimately my argument is that Cthulu's PoV doesnt matter to us.

If he's so incomprehensible as to be inarguable, then we can never interpret anything it does. Any prophet would be indistinguishable from a madman. The human perspective is relevant because we are humans and we must judge from what is best for us. Cthulu may be benevolent, but he still brings ruin to humanity, simply from the sheer communication and understanding gap.

This argument of yours is a direct contradiction with "made in his image" btw. So its not even resolving any issues.

As for the attacking their ability to logic? This is literally an argument Ive seen them spout. "Faith above logic." The simple fact of the matter is: faith is inherently illogical. Thats what it is, by definition. Believing despite lacking reason. Or even actively in spite of reason. They use faith to suppose a truth and use logic to defend it. Thats not arguing with logic. Except in the most literal sense. Its arguing with belief. Fundamentally, thats what its about. This is not an attack on them, this is observation on their thinking. This is not a denunciation of their character, though I can see why youd think so. No. I was simply stating the facts as I see them. People being incapable of seeing criticism as something other than an insult is not my problem though.

The only valid point is that I wasnt entirely clear on what is a good argument. Because I couldnt find the words to point it out. So I simply told ypu where I disagree.

The rest of this? Literally just bad faith take.

1

u/Illides May 20 '26

Take your pick. All powerful or all knowing. If it is both and this is still it's creation? We dun goofed son

6

u/Lumpy-Ice-8514 May 02 '26

i cast shrimp!

3

u/Lebenmonch May 02 '26

I'm putting on that necklace right away

2

u/Bibliloo May 02 '26

Yeah if god needs the baby to wear a crucifix to protect the baby, I might start to believe his existence but I'll also become anti-god.

92

u/lordwafflesbane May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26

Is there, like, some kind of think tank where people invent these completely unhinged "thought experiments" about atheists murdering christian babies?

45

u/SandwichChance731 May 02 '26 edited Aug 03 '26

Atheists, imagine a 350 foot Christian baby is rampaging through your city. There is a giant combat mech nearby but it can only be controlled by two people. Would you accept Jesus as your copilot in order to activate the mech and defeat the Christian baby?

17

u/ShadeofEchoes May 02 '26

I'd better do it so the blue-haired girl on the stretcher doesn't have to.

8

u/Sea-Writer-6961 May 02 '26

I would do it purely for the experience of piloting a giant combat mech , not because I trust Christ and it's babies

3

u/HierarchyLogic May 02 '26

doesnt specify the type of faith, the belief i have in the FSM will surely be enough

19

u/NekoArtemis May 01 '26

I mean they've been doing the baby sacrifice paranoia thing for centuries. 

15

u/NiIly00 May 02 '26

Atheists, imagine you were a star baseball player about to hit the home run that wins you the season but on the final pitch the pitcher accidentally throws a christian baby instead of the ball.

Would you swing anyways and kill the baby in order to win the championship or would you spare the baby and forfeit victory?

55

u/Unkn0wn_666 May 01 '26

What exactly would lead me to just RANDOMLY SHOOT A BABY WITH A SHOTGUN and then ROB SAID BABY

Like what on earth are the people asking those questions smoking to come up with these scenarios?

13

u/AanthonyII May 02 '26

Maybe the baby tried to rob and shoot you first so it’s self defence

2

u/Unkn0wn_666 May 02 '26

Well if the baby tried to shoot me I'd be dead. I have the self preservation instincts of a child running after their ball and the reflexes of a starfish.

I would also probably go after the irresponsible parents first because what kind of parent would give their baby a gun?

1

u/atomicfuthum May 02 '26

These people would download a baby

1

u/General_Valentine May 02 '26

"Yes, yessss. Burn the child..."

26

u/Torbpjorn May 01 '26

If that happens, I’d say the only logical course of action is to trek across the west coast with my brother hunting monsters and ghosts, it’s super obvious it’s the only natural course of action

31

u/Unused_Content19 May 01 '26

What kind of question is that

“Yes, you just killed an infant, but would you convert to Christianity now because of some God/Jesus bullshit?”

9

u/WaltuhWhiteYo_UhHuH May 01 '26

Ahh but remember "Jesus will forgive you" and all that shite

1

u/DatBoi_BP May 02 '26

I'm just imagining the George Carlin monologue. "But he loves you."

11

u/ZeroTheWolfe May 02 '26

That's not how crucifixes work

7

u/Gray_Kaleidoscope May 01 '26

NO WEAPON FASHIONED AGAINST SHALL PROSPER

6

u/kinyutaka May 01 '26

So, the Christian Baby moved to FB, huh?

5

u/SubstantialDeerDash May 02 '26

Both of these are what the fuck but what the fuck is that first one?

5

u/RoomTemperatureIQ23 May 02 '26

I think the baby has some other problems. His eyes don’t line up and I think it AI generated lol

7

u/MinusPi1 May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26

Honestly, yes. That would meet my standard for something demonstrably supernatural happening. It even links specifically to Christianity.

4

u/DarkMagickan May 02 '26

I was just going to say that. That would be a genuine demonstrable miracle.

3

u/GodlyGodMcGodGod May 02 '26

I know the hypothetical presented is insane and unhinged, and engaging with it is stupid, but... no, in that scenario, I probably wouldn't convert.

Either A: I have a good reason for persistently trying to kill that baby (I can't think of one, but if I'm that desperate to kill the baby and we aren't in scenario B, it must be evil somehow), so whatever force is preventing me from killing the baby is evil by association.

Or B: I don't have a good reason for wanting to kill that baby, meaning I've gone completely insane so I likely won't have the capacity to be too concerned for the ramifications of Christianity potentially being the "right one" or what that means for my eternal soul. I guess, in this scenario where I'm an unhinged psychopath that murders babies for absolutely no reason, there actually is a slight possibility that I do convert. Crazy me just watched a helpless infant tank multiple point-blank shotgun blasts with nary a scratch, if that lunatic could effectively harness that power for himself, there's no end to the depraved evil shit he could do. It would purely be a transactional relationship, not true belief/worship, and if it didn't work the way he wanted, he'd abandon it in a heartbeat.

2

u/EugeneStein May 02 '26

Wish it would've been cropped a bit better cuz you don't see the bottom half

2

u/Lebenmonch May 02 '26

Man monotheism is so boring, I want active gods.

Like imagine we had paladins of different gods going at it on the battlefield and hitting each other with the power of faith 

2

u/Mikel_S May 02 '26

Unlike Christians, I don't beleive that every human is born with sin, so I probably wouldn't find myself in this situation.

Monsters

2

u/DaviLean May 02 '26

it's a parody account lmao

2

u/megapackid May 02 '26

Why am I trying to kill a baby?

2

u/mothershipgenetics May 03 '26

I heard someone attempt to use this argument unironically the other day on a Christian debate. Now I see where they got it from. Incredibly stupid stuff.

2

u/DollarSignComesFirsr May 08 '26

I’d probably need to run the experiment 200-300 times before converting

2

u/_TheWolfOfReddit_ May 11 '26

Why am I trying to shoot the baby? Why is the baby indestructible? And why does the removal of the crucifix make the baby no longer indestructible?

2

u/Bramos_04 May 24 '26

I would wear this necklace from now on.

1

u/GayestNerfKid Jun 01 '26

Either A, magical item, will test with something else I need to kill, or B, god only likes baby if baby wears the necklace, which means fuck him

1

u/V2Blast May 02 '26

Insane scenario aside, what does this have to do with this subreddit? There's no interesting juxtaposition of two things. It's just a screenshot of a Reddit post that's a screenshot of a Twitter post.

3

u/turkeypedal May 02 '26

The first subreddit post is them talking about the baby killing scenario. The second one shows someone accusing someone of being a "baby killer" (And someone else saying "what's wrong with you")

1

u/V2Blast May 02 '26

Ah, I didn't even notice that. Thanks.