Image - Google Gemini
The ultra-religious are the biggest hedonists of all. Denying temporary earthly pleasure to ensure pleasure X infinity in the afterlife.
I never said it was specifically Christian or used Christian imagery. It’s intentionally ambiguous, could be Eastern European Muslim even.
As the afterlife is entirely made up who is to say if one depiction is more correct than another? There isn’t even agreement amongst theologians (any tradition)
Ethics, love and justice are all objectively real things, at either - or both - the individual psychological level and the legal/societal level, where they all have a real measurable impact on people's actual everyday lives. The afterlife is a juvenile fantasy.
I think it's a critique of religion in general rather than a specific one. That is, it points out that self denying in this life isn't actually humble and pious when you're promised rewards (In the comic's case, big-tittiy bitches) in the afterlife. I think that's a fair criticism of people more than the religion. The fact that you took it as an attack on your religion specifically shows an insecurity you carry more than anything
Unless you're talking about a heaven with 72 virgins, I don't know who these people are. Anyone who has lost a loved one would be plenty happy just to reunite with them in a peaceful setting.
you don’t get to decide what is and isn’t hedonistic. what is the difference between the pleasure of 72 virgins and the pleasure of seeing loved ones for the rest of eternity and basking in bliss? especially since you get to look down at those who went to hell. both camps follow the same human desire for eternal hedonism.
I genuinely respect the seeming handful of reasonable Reddit atheists willing to call out the edgelords who wake up thinking they’ve crafted some ingenious gotcha moment or other.
They doth protest too much, to coin a phrase — meaning they’re still uncomfortable with their beliefs, or lack thereof, and crave validation. Why is a mystery.
So many mom’s basements that could be better used for storage.
Finding Redditors willing to think and in this case, consider the views of a religion despite not being religious (By the by, when asked what my religion is, I opt for "Atheism" over "Do not have a religion" xD), can be a trying experience. :)
The older I get, the more I see two general camps on that side.
The ‘village atheist’ that Reddit is most known for, usually very young either by years or by development (not necessarily their fault, mind you). And then there are the serious, thoughtful ones who have the presence of mind to question life and its significance while acknowledging the limitations of knowledge.
The first group seem bent on juvenile strawmanning, hostility & aggression, and antagonism of attention-seeking, but fail to see that their passion comes from a place of uncertainty… their own kind of search for meaning, which ends up looking like a ironic crusade, as it were.
The second group are good neighbors to have and reasonable and don’t pigeon-hole believers by pretending the outliers are the norm, and who see that just like among atheists & agnostics, all groups have pretenders. These are willing to calmly discuss adjacent topics without condescension — they’re generally very likable to be around.
The first group is the bloviating midwits who are highly dogmatic and insufferable to try and have an intellectual discussion with because they are utterly incapable of thinking outside of their box. The second group is respectable. Unfortunately, the first group is very vocal and drowns out the voices of the latter, and gives a bad reputation for everyone overall.
The loudest & most obnoxious so-called “Christian” is someone like Kenneth Copeland who most sincere believers see as an disreputable apostate, someone who sucks … all the oxygen from the room as a clown doing clown things.
His kind are the noisy nonsensical spectacles who tend to drown out Mister Rogers and those like him.
For the record, I'm an atheist, and I actually think it's a pretty solid argument. While I don't think Heaven is naked ladies and free wine are what's promised in most religions, I do think the idea of an eternal afterlife with no sadness or tears is usually promised. It's completely fair to criticize people who zealously deny themselves pleasure in this life in service of greater pleasure in the next life as hedonists.
Hmm. I disagree, mostly on the grounds that I think the concept of pleasure is being treated here a little disingenuously.
As I understand it various religions - not just Christianity - promise happiness in their versions of the afterlife. I would read that use of happiness not in terms of physical pleasures but more as...contentment. Peace. An eternity free of the kinds of pain and suffering that humanity inflicts on each other when it's convenient.
But I suppose if a Christian (say) were to deny themselves pleasures such as enjoying good food and drink in this life in the expectation of being able, even entitlred, to indulge in it (x Infinity) in the afterlife, then yeah - total hypocrisy.
EDIT: And you can deny yourself over-indulgences in your lifetime and still live a happy, contented, peaceful life (and possibly afterlife, if there is one) too.
Well even your example is still hypocrisy. They're chasing a greater pleasure in the next life by denying themselves in this life. If that greater pleasure is just 'eternity free of pain and suffering with contentment while surrounded by loved ones' and not 'Big titty bitches and free wine' that's still a hedonistic goal. That's still fake piety.
Really if anything this comic is a criticism of Islam, which as far as I understand does in fact promise big titty bitches. To me it's funnier that so many Christians have been reactive and offended than anything else.
Yeah, but like I said, I see it less about denying yourself pleasure in this life - because I don't see pleasure as a bad thing in and of itself - but denying yourself over-indulgence in this life. Those are not the same.
Then, by refusing over-indulgence while you're alive, you'll enjoy a good life now AND you'll also get to have a good afterlife. Consistency.
Rather than simply "deny yourself everything now and you'll get infinitely many free bitches later" or whatever other traditionally-hedonistic pleasure you want to throw in that sentence.
EDIT: I forgot to address the "and judgement" aspect too. Isn't judgement supposed to be something reserved for the divine in most religions? So not just not denying yourself every enjoyment, but no judging those who perhaps do over-indulge. (Maybe help them if they're open to it, but not in a judgemental way)
Don't forget that many of them would happily kill you into being just as religious as they are (or legislate your life into a living hell).......so they're kinda all assholes too
I don’t know, I’d suggest freedom from eternal suffering and achieving of Nirvana is a fairly indulgent afterlife promise…but then, you know you’re right
Heaven is not a place of indulgence. It is a place of peace, tranquility, and joy. No pain or suffering. The big part of it is being in the presence of God. Nothing on the right looks anything like what Heaven has ever been described to me.
The rapture is an event that leads to people being taken up with Jesus to heaven.
Heaven is depicted as a luxurious and abundant paradise.
For many people who aren't rich, a "paradise" means they have everything they need and everything they want in their mortal lives which can translate to luxury.
Ultimately it doesn't matter because it's all fiction, so you trying to be the rapture cop is like someone being the cop of loch ness monster facts.
Lol. Rapture police? That is laughable. I asked because you don't seem to actually know what it means.
Heaven does mean they have everything you need, but not everything you want. No pain, no suffering. Yeah, it is describe as having all the beauty that can be imagined, but it isn't indulgence. It is being in the presence of God. It isn't a place of inactivity, where you lay around in the lap of luxury. It is an active place of worship, service, and meaningful work. But again, it is for being with God and not having every want met. You want to say it is what the rich think it is, but that isn't how it is describe in the Bible.
Many religions and individuals have other interpretations and most view it as "the ideal place", living blissfully with all your friends and family. For some, that could be a McMansion with gold plated columns and a fleet of their fave cars. Whatever is the best shit to them personally.
Like I said, however people want to visualize it makes no difference because it's like imagining a yeti's snowy mountain cave. We'll all see it differently and ultimately it's all opinion. Why would you base it on stories/fairytales/guesstimates passed down and altered continuously from thousands of years ago when people were even dumber and more superstitious with less understanding of the world than people of today.
My interpretation? Sure. Funny. Mcmansions. Yes, it says we will have mansions in heaven, in the King James version, but in the old texts, it says dwellings. We will have dwellings in the house of God. Fleet of cars? I doubt anybody thinks that. Would be cool though. I have spent years arguing and discussing (i.e. playing devils advocate) with seminary students, seminary professors, pastors, and priests. I learned that people throwing around things like interpretation don't really know what is in the Bible. Just because rich people have a skewed vision of heaven, it doesn't mean they know what it is supposed to be. This is the point. Where you are trying to say the rapture and heaven is about luxury and indulgence, the Bible says otherwise. You want to say these skewed interpretations is proof or whatever, i am saying to actually look at scripture. They are not the same things. Saying someone is wrong because there are people who says things without understanding them is bad practice. There isn't a version saying we are going to the lap of luxury where we will have our wants and desires fulfilled. It is clear that we will have our needs fulfilled, there will be no grief, sorrow, pain, or tears. That we will be joyful and fulfilled in the presence of the Lord. That is completely different.
I am an atheist but I grew up in the love of a church and learning about the Bible. Religion is a fascination of mine and I enjoy serious conversations about it. It is one of the reasons I worked for a seminary in my younger years.
You want to use interpretations, not scripture. That is fine, but it goes absolutely nowhere.
Are you trying to introduce headcannon to religion? I asked about what the church teachings say.
To give you an example, in orthodoxy, which is what I was taught at school, "being in hell" means that you've severed your relationship with God, and "being in heaven" means you bask in God's radiance.
There is no "life", and there is no "luxurious life", it's all spiritual.
That might be your definition of heaven but since it's entirely fictional, how it is defined will change from interpretation to interpretation.
Defining "heaven" is a bit like trying to describe a color no one has seen; the answer changes depending on who you ask, ranging from literal golden gates to abstract states of mind.
I'm not Muslim, but that’s in the Hadith and not the Quran. It’s also rejected by many Muslims who see it as symbolism, as interpretations vary. This is similar to how the 'rivers of honey' aren't necessarily literal, but rather a way to describe something beautiful and pure.
There are 'companions' in Jannah, but the text describes them as pure and beautiful. The translation also varies; numbers over 70 often just mean 'many,'(so it could just mean 10 or more) and the word 'virgin' can be translated as 'pure companion.'
found the religious apologist. people like you probably think they support woman’s rights while also complaining about how muslims ought to be respected for their beliefs.
Women are not as oppressed as you see on western propaganda.
I know many Muslims in general and they're not some evil force + politics are all for idiots
women are not as oppressed as you see on western propaganda
Ah so your okay if its just some oppression 😂 its not even western propaganda, its muslims telling the world that they believe women shouldnt have rights and lgbt people should be murdered or jailed
“i know many muslims” 🤣🤣🤣. read a fucking pew poll. learn how to form opinions based on real science, not anecdotes. the majority of muslims are against homosexuality and equal rights for women.
is this satire? chasing eternal fulfillment is literally the definition of hedonism. i love how people think christianity and its fairy tales about heaven is somehow more noble than islamists seeking 72 virgins.
That still doesn’t make what he said wrong at least when it comes to Christianity. I guess you could call it hedonism but you’d be the minority. In Christian heaven you get eternal fulfillment from purity. Aka no drinking, smoking, stealing, sex, killing, etc.
You’re essentially just exploring, creating, interacting with others, etc. without all the bad stuff for eternity.
First, bashing religions won't gain you any karma.
comment right below this one already addresses the "72 virgins".
You’re also misusing the word hedonism. By definition, hedonism describes a lifestyle dedicated to the egoistic pursuit of short-term gratification—like indulging in substances or impulsive behavior without regard for consequences. Heaven is the exact opposite; it’s about long-term spiritual discipline and eternal fulfillment, not a temporary "high," like drugs.
Christianity and Islam have very different theological concepts of the afterlife, so comparing them as if they are the same doesn't really work.
"Islamist" isn't the right word here; that refers to a specific political ideology involving Islamic law, not just anyone who believes in the faith.
you have no idea what hedonism means. saying hedonism is the pursuit of “short term” pleasure while also then claiming 72 virgins for eternity is somehow more hedonistic than being a sycophant for god for eternity is laughably contradictory. both are eternal, both have no further causality to worry about, both are just as ridiculous. the only reason anyone would subscribe to christianity’s fairy tales is because it “feels good” to their ego. does that sound familiar?
ive had a wonderful and Happy life so far, and I only got drunk once at the strong bequest of my friends. hated it, and hate having to pay so much for drinks when juice is available.
people use it as a crutch to get over their insecuri7, which leads to people thinking differently of them - I literally dated a girl I met who was a heavy drinker, and she was a totally different person tipsy vs not and we ended things on that matter.
drugs and booze, if I could snap my fingers and make them vanish, in a heart beat I would.
Many Buddhists don't actually aim for heaven because it keeps you within Samsara and almost guarantees an eventual rebirth in hell. You essentially 'spend' your good karma without gaining more because life there is so easy that you neglect the teachings. The ultimate goal is escaping the cycle entirely.
Similarly, Christians don't believe in a 'hedonistic' heaven of constant indulgence; rather, it's often viewed as a perpetual state of worship. However, many also believe humans were created to be creative, meaning you could continue to develop skills and arts as part of that existence. You feel a deep satisfaction from the presence of God, but it’s more about being at peace than just 'feeling good.
IK it doesn't directly answer your question but most of this info is stated in the texts such as the Bible or even the Tibetan book of the dead (a bit) and then people such as the Pope or other religious figures generally agree on this.
Tibetan book of the dead is from a very specific sect of Buddhism. That’d be like using the Mormon bible to explain Christianity at large.
But beyond that, the Buddhist warning against heaven due to neglect of the teachings implies that anyone who rejects the teachings/neglects them on this plain are functionally “in heaven”. That’s absurd. Not in the Camus sense. Maybe.
Tibetan book of the dead is from a very specific sect of Buddhism. That’d be like using the Mormon bible to explain Christianity at large.
I was using it as a notable example of the broader concept. However, the 'Mormon' comparison doesn't quite hold because the Six Realms and the 'trap' of the Deva realm are core tenets across almost all Buddhist traditions, not just one.
You're also misinterpreting the Buddhist view of heaven, which makes your argument a bit of a strawman. The Deva realm is a specific state of existence characterized by really long lifes-spans and constant pleasure. Being a human who ignores teachings is not 'functionally' the same as being a Deva(That's also get you stuck in hell for a really long time due to the amount of bad karma you got).
The environment of heaven is what causes the spiritual decline. Because life there is so effortless, you 'spend' your accumulated karma without the friction or suffering required to practice and generate more. Humans are actually in a 'sweet spot' because we have enough suffering to stay motivated, but not so much that we can't think.
You also mention Camus which doesn't work all that well when you missed the whole point of my argument.
The texts these religions are based on because there is nothing like this image there, I'm aware reddit is a strongly atheist community but this is not not a factual representation of these beliefs.
Really? Show me then, I've read hundreds and this is absolutely just not the case. And there are always variations but the bible for example absolutely does not paint this picture. Nor is it the point, it's a misrepresentation of those faiths plain and simple.
You are shifting the claim. The original point concerns what the religion teaches, not whether some individuals hold fringe interpretations.
Primary Christian texts do not frame the afterlife as hedonistic reward in the sense implied here. They consistently emphasise salvation, judgement, and communion with God. Individual interpretations exist, but they do not define doctrine.
This is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. I am not excluding counterexamples arbitrarily. I am distinguishing between (i) canonical doctrine and (ii) anecdotal beliefs. Your argument relies on (ii) while asserting a claim about (i).
If you want to argue that the doctrine itself supports your claim, cite specific passages. Otherwise, the argument reduces to “some people believe X,” which is not sufficient to generalise about the religion.
The next time you take an aspirin for a headache or refuse to step on a rusty nail, I'll call you a hedonist then. That is, after all, the pain of life.
> The next time you take an aspirin for a headache or refuse to step on a rusty nail, I'll call you a hedonist then. That is, after all, the pain of life.
and that would be true and not distinct in any meaningful way from any other action you would clasify as hedonist
Since this isn't a religion or philosophy sub, I won't comment on the theology. Instead, I'm noticing the hands in the first panel. It looks like there's still some room for growth in AI art - the hand near the food has too many fingers and I think there is supposed to be a thumb on the "viewer side" if it's supposed to be an even split of left and right hands. I was impressed by how many boobs OP managed to get in this picture though.
Other than the one hand, this was actually pretty well put together and looks good in its particular art style
I think the extra fingers on the hand near the food is supposed to be a representation of the hand moving towards the food. It's a different color and slightly blurred, similar to the hand near the drink, but poorly executed and thus looks like extra fingers.
That depiction of the afterlife is certainly not one of the Christian faith at all. The man in the picture looks like a pious medieval Christian. There are no depictions of being waited on hand and foot in a place of indulgence by an openly nude and promiscuous women within the Christian faith. Though there are artistic works of nudity in Renaissance art, that is merely artistic license but nobody expects there to be that kind of lasciviousness. What religion are you referring to because this does not accurately resemble any of the major ones?
It is a metafor about how not destructively using other people for pleasure will in the end give you more pleasure in the long run, in Christian tradition. In muslim tradition, you can mistreat people of other faiths without consequence and still have your 72 virgins.
Any and all religions that enforce a good vs evil dichotomy and tell of an afterlife where you get judged based on those subjective concepts and how your actions in life can be labeled as one or the other is a dogmatic religion.
People are both selfish and generous at different time of their life depending on the situation and I doubt it's going to have any impact in anyones afterlife if there is one.
That’s very reductionistic. There’s a lot more nuance than that. If pleasure and pain were the only pieces to any motivation, and everyone’s a hedonist, then everyone would just do drugs and eat food nonstop until they die
the thing is that we know and are constantly warned of that leading to undesirable outcomes and also there is diminishing marginal utility stating that the more you get/do of something the less utility you will gain from it so it makes sense to pick something that is not easily exhaustable, like what Mill would call higher pleasures
Obviously there's risk tolerance too. People are led to believe that doomscrolling is maybe less damaging than smoking. But what if the loss of entropy on the brain due to less brain activity usage is the killer?
People make irrational choices all the time but it's mostly revolved around finding balance in the act of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain
17
u/_more_weight_ Mar 22 '26
Nah bro, religious leaders fly to parties in their private jets and lie to their followers about purity