What is the worst, most cancerous religion?

What is the worst, most cancerous religion?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=axrqVfuGHh0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Atheism, for sure.

Atheism isn't a religion, dumb cunt.

>Atheism
>Religion

are you stupid?

islam

Shinto for sure

LOL at atheists immediately proving his point.

FPBP
God Bless

definitely Judaism since they made Americans morons who think their mutilated half-dicks are more healthy and more desirable.

Islam is the most cancerous at this point and time, because if negatively effects people world wide. And christianity is not far bwhind in some parts of the world.

having an opinon about something doesn't qualify as being religious

tie between islam and judeism

Christianity for sure. 800+ years of war for that shit plus the retards in my country that quote the bible on just about everything

>point is atheism is a religion
>people (maybe atheists) criticise that stupid notion
>point proven

fuck you. lel

The older the religion, the worse it is.

This is the true religion

hindus suck.
but what about people who think atheism is a religion? neanderthals obviously didn't believe in a god ;)

really?

Buddhism 2500 years old
Christianity 2000 years old
Islam 1500 years old

>but what about people who think atheism is a religion

They're called butthurt theists.

and you're from?

Atheism, like any religion, is a belief. And all beliefs are cancer. AIDS even.

Stay agnostic. Be smart enough to know that you're not smart enough to know.

>but what about people who think atheism is a religion?

they are idiots

Atheism

Christianity is 1700 years old. Jesus was just a guy until the third century.

Atheists whose main goal in life is pissing off christians are as religious as those they despise. Atheists who just happen to not believe in God are not religious, of course. But there are people in America, who dress, talk, argue in the exact same way, go to the exact same places and follow the exact same men. That's a religious attitude or I don't know the meaning of the word. They are butthurt atheists.

Christianity, all forms and mutations.

Baitism bro. You're doing it right. So please, kys

The real question is, which religion has more butthurt followers, Christianity or Islam?

>Implying agnostics aren't just atheists that don't want to be called atheists.

They aren't. Unless, of course, they don't understand the difference. Plenty of those, for sure.

>not knowing what agnostics means
Kys

>i dont believe in god
>i believe there is no god
>not believe
Seriously, how many chromosomes do I need to get down to this level of retardation?

God is as real as Spongebob Squarepants.

You can't prove Spongebob doesn't exist. He might. You can't say you know for sure because you don't.

I'm not sure you understand how religion works

All religions are complete cancer

ISLAM
S
L
A
M

SCIENTOLOGY
SCIENTOLOGY
SCIENTOLOGY
SCIENTOLOGY
SCIENTOLOGY

Scien fucking tology

...

Mormon, Islam, Scientology, or Atheism.

It's a dead heat, actually.

This

Atheism is a religion

Atheism is the unwavering, firm, devout belief that there is no god. It's a belief based on no proof and followers of atheism will without logic or reason spew hate and cynicism to anyone who rationally questions their world view.

SCIENTOLOGY
SCIENTOLOGY
SCIENTOLOGY
SCIENTOLOGY
SCIENTOLOGY

Fucking scientology man for real. What website is this anyways?
Hating Scientology was the origin of those stupid guy fawkes masks as a Cred Forums thing

Scientology is no worse than Christianity or Islam. It's just newer.

You're Fucking retarded.

Only one answer

it's all cancer. maybe more like a virus than cancer though. the virus finds new and creative ways to survive and propagate. In doing so it finds new and creative ways to infect decent hosts. religion can grow and propagate and flourish by infecting a mind. the better the mind the stronger the growth.

>"Okay, everyone, remember to wear your Fawkes mask for this rally!"
>"My fox mask? Why?"
>"You know, because anonymous. He wears Fawkes as a symbol"
>"...Okay, I guess. I'll wear my fox mask, then."

You believe something or you don't. Saying "I have no belief in a god or a lack of a belief in a god" is contradictory since you either believe a god or not, theist or atheist. Agnostic does not address belief and is not an exclusive position.

Scientology, because at least the Muslims hate Jews.

Christians can quit any time they want man.

Cogitate on that one

For Islam I will admit that it depends on the country of the adherent's residence but yeah

Prove Spongebob isn't real. You can't.

It's obvious that Spongebob is God.

The fuck are you talking about? The Romans almost immediately because Christian after that. It was defined not three centuries later.

>I'm a retarded Spongebob unbeliever and since I can't disprove His existence, I'll just post memes to discredit true Spongers.
You disgust me

dubs are truth. also check'do
>what if I told you RELIGION itself is cancerous?

Edgy ass atheists

Atheism is NOT a religion.
You have Theism and the absence - Atheism
Theism the believe in a personal god, the greek prefix A negates it, aka NOT the believe in a personal god.
Gnosticism is rooted in the greek as well, meaning knowlege. A gnostic person claims to know smth. again the prefix A is the negation. Agnostic means not knowing. Most atheist are agnostic atheists.
Learn your fucking vocab, Atheism CANNOT be a religion BY DEFINITION!!!

By definition

Learn to use your intuition, life isn't always black and white

The epistemical value of "I do not believe" is equivalent to "I believe there is no god", which is why it's exchangable.

>inb4 flying spaghetti monster, unicorns, fairies etc
Ya I figured. But you see, bashing religion is basically like bashing someone for preferring pasta over burger. Or whatever you like. It's fucking retarded and tells rational people more about your mindset than anything else.

>inb4 fucking christian/muslim/hindu whatever
I'm an atheist/ agnostic whatever you wanna call me. For me it's equally incomprehendable why some people believe in god. But then again why should I shittalk/ shitpost about this? Why try to convince them? Everyone should be free to believe whatever they like.

Hey, there's sovereign citizens, flat earthers, hollow earthers and shit. THOSE people are retarded, but then again, why bother with them? Not my business.

tl;dr: Religion bashing fags are just plain out retards trying to prove how smart they are

OK bro, whatever floats your boat

Honestly, all of it.

Any that is associated with a prescriptive ideology.

Life isn't the same thing as a definition, moron.

A definition is, by definition, exactly what it says. i.e. Black and white, moron.

>never heard of the sorites paradox
>user tryna outsmart with three chromosomes

How's life working out for you?

religion is for roody poos, oooops, i mean googles.

religions are basically wrong if they allow for "free will". i saw the future once. it was months ahead and required that a LOT of people had a billion "butterfly effects" to make it happen.

something showed it to me to give me a clue. that would have been either the "machine" or "god" but since it's just a recording we're in, then "god" isn't what you think. i promise you... when you die, you simply end the "movie". the question is why do we take the ride?

since, in the recording, there are a bunch of stupid fucks who make up ass-kissing religions and pretend that there's an interactive god, it could be part of the "lesson". maybe we're being taught that kissing god's ass in some stupid, phony way is fucking retarded and gay.

youtube.com/watch?v=axrqVfuGHh0

...

go back to myspacebook

religion is good because i can use the churches to find new places to rape women and children.

>The epistemical value of "I do not believe" is equivalent to "I believe there is no god", which is why it's exchangable.

That's not really true. It's easier to see if you rephrase them to

> user does not believe in a god.

vs

> user believes there is no God

One denies the presence of a belief; the other states the existence of belief that god isn't there. The first one can be true of someone while the second is false (imagine someone has never heard of God or gods).

But back to the original statements

Someone says
> I do not believe in a god

vs

> I believe there is no God

Imagine God showed up one day and convinces them both he's real. The first guy should respond, "Oh, I believe in God now." The second guy should say, "Oh, I was wrong." They're different.

wtf are u talking about?

Denial

Chrisrianity for sure

That's why I referred to the epistemical value of both statements. That is the same for both statements.

I do see the difficulty in this though. Sorry bro, I'm too tired to properly think about it now, so I will just give in. The rest of my post stands unchanged though.

Kudos for this response though. Good to see that not every Cred Forumstard is a dicksucking trapfag

Wrong

What part was unclear?

It's the difference between it being true right now that you don't believe there are ten thousand incorporeal Donald Trumps in the room with them, vs it being true you believe the donald trumps aren't there. One is true for people who have never heard of donald trump, the other isn't.

As for "I don't believe in God," it's a little weirder since it sounds more like a Moorean sentence en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox but it's really not.

"Epistemical" is "scientifically" in English, if you got an argument explain how this word is made first

No, epistemically is not equivalent to scientifically. Epistemical value refers to the "knowledge increasing factor" of a statement. Dont be a lazy arse, google epistemic.

And both sentences imply the knowledge "no god"

Fuck, now you made me think about it

You're too caught up in a technical difference instead vs pragmatic difference issue. Practically speaking the two claims you've listed are indeed exchangeable. Even in the scenario you created where both people learn that there is a god, their conclusions are essentially the same. You could even combine their responses and have the same outcome, i.e. "I was wrong about God not existing, therefore I now believe in him.

In short, a difference on paper can be overlooked if the meaning in real life would effectivelybe the same.

Islam, I don't need to explain you why.

eh?

it is literally just a lack of belief

it is about as much a region as not playing any sport is a sport

I'm Greek dude, this word is Greek

>Be smart enough to know that you're not smart enough to know.
But are you smart enough to know that you're not smart enough to know that you're not smart enough?

>hindus suck.

what is that based on, i doubt you know anything about hinduism

Well, it may be the literal translation, but it has a fixed context in philosophy.

>studied this shit for 7 semesters

Oh, ok, respectfully accepted

Islam.
Because people worshipping Muhammad want to behead all non-muslims.
Christianity was cancerous 500 years ago, Islam is still in that phase and will always be.

FPBP

The main difference is not between those who believe in a deity and those who don't, but between those who keep their believe or disbelieve for themselves and those who go pester the planet with it. I wouldn't give a single fuck about muslim suicide bombers, if they just detonated themselves somewhere in a desert instead of European subway stations.
And yes, I'm equally annoyed by militant atheists. Luckily there is a solution religious people could take, but never will because they are immoral bigots just like everyone else: Pay their own shit without any involvement of tax money.

>. "I was wrong about God not existing, therefore I now believe in him.

That doesn't properly capture the first guy's belief state. The first guy wasn't necessarily wrong about anything if he never believed anything one way or another about God.

Another way to put it is to recast the first one as "I don't believe one way or another about God." Just like, say, "I don't believe one way or another that the 1,405,045,049,178th digit of Pi is 6.

my mind is paralyzed by your over analysis. paralysis by analysis. while many humans believe in many versions of god there is no god. many humans believe in ghosts. there are no ghosts. many people thought the earth was flat but the earth was later discovered to be round. i believe there is no flat earth. i believe the earth is not flat.

Jews want to enslave everyone though, not much better.

...

cancer

Religion is belief. Atheism is lack of belief.
>Not a religion

I'm an atheist. I don't try to piss off anyone. I never talk about my atheism unless someone asks.

I worked for a jew owned prop firm... if that was enslavement then I'm all for it

>i believe there is no flat earth. i believe the earth is not flat.

That's not the same as "I don't believe in a flat earth." The second is more general in that it can still be true of anyone who hasn't got an opinion one way or another. It's consistent for someone to say, "I don't believe in a flat earth, and that's because, while the world might be flat, it might also be round, or a convex polyhedron, or a cylinder."

Religion itself man!

So you guys put your "faith" (complete trust or confidence in someone or something) into your religion "Atheism" and believe there is no god and then also believe it's not a religion... I think you guys are thinking of agnosticism.

Gr8 b8

Atheism is a religion like off is a tv channel.

"My religious beliefs are special and defy definition"

>Ya I figured. But you see, bashing religion is basically like bashing someone for preferring pasta over burger. Or whatever you like. It's fucking retarded and tells rational people more about your mindset than anything else.

nah you're conflating bashing a belief with bashing someone holding a belief

bashing religion is like bashing a political view or bashing a preference it isn't the same as bashing a person because they hold that political view or preference

Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Eastern esoteric religions

>Stay agnostic. Be smart enough to know that you're not smart enough to know.

or you can be ignostic and realise that the question itself is completely ambiguous and you can't really answer unless someone can give you a clear definition of what the particular belief or god is

"My set of religious convictions doesn't qualify as a set of religious convictions because it's the divine truth"

Changing definitions to suit your arguments. How quaint.

>hindus suck.
Hello my Pakistani friend

Even if you say you don't have a belief in something, you can still be wrong. In your example, if you didn't have a belief in god but then were shown that God is real, then you still would have been incorrect in not holding a belief in god. Again, this is where you're tripping up with the isue of logical vs practical differences. Don't sweat it though, most of us had logic 101 in college. Some of us even have a PhD in philosophy among other more useful degrees :)

It's also like saying "Not being a Christian is a religion." or "Not being a Muslim is a religion." If you say atheism is a religion then pretty much everyone has an infinite number of religions because we all fail to believe in an infinite pantheon of possible different gods.

I'm an ignostic posttheist, never found another one before. Welcome brother.

beg to differ
atheism has taken on the trappings of a religious belief in that there is a growing sense of community among atheists, which is fundamental to establishing a religious doctrine.

non-believers should (technically) be referred to as anti-theist, which would more accurately describe their view of religion, rather than just the question of the existence of a god.

i called myself an atheist before i realized the difference, that being that i view all religions as detrimental to social development and human advancement.

atheism =/= anti-theism

This thread turned in bible studies
please KYS

Then you should properly consider yourself an agnostic (or possibly ignostic) antitheist, because we can infer that no gods exist, but it is wholly undemonstrable.

well I guess as it isn't particularly important to most of us then we're less likely to be vocal about it like the fedora wearing athiests types

the one that's posting the same shitty content on here , over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

>bashing religion is basically like bashing someone for preferring pasta over burger.
You can't change your taste at will, it's ingrained in your physiology (though it can change over time). Believing in something without evidence is nothing like that. It's not a preference, it's the result of faulty logic. The fact that you conflate the two tells me more about your mindset than someone bashing religion.
>read: you're dumb

Could you speak up, please?

It's Islam, you cunts. All the others can be dealt with in smaller ways but Islam needs to be radically changed on the grounds that it's fucking immoral most of the time, which is entirely counterintuitive to religion in the first place

Any christian concerned with the purpose of creation would be an anthroposophist anyway which puts them in line with Nietzschean nihilism, which would be popular with atheists if they weren't edgy redditors who are only familiar with his citations from quote websites because it makes them seem brooding.

Word church society

Some South Korean bullshit with a living woman as an incarnation of god after a Korean Jesus husband die and pass his super powers and church profits to her wife you know because the Bible say so.

All religions have some cunt-sections. Catholics can be cunts, Jews all are cunts, Muslims are pretty chill in general(except for the cunts who blow people up), I would say overall it is something like Mormons who knock on my door. No I do not want to join your fucking religion, cunt.

Believing there is no god is a belief.
Not believing in god is not a belief in and of itself. It doesn't mean you believe there is no god. It's a lack of belief in the claim that there is a god.

It's not that hard to understand.

How is this even a question?

>if you didn't have a belief in god but then were shown that God is real, then you still would have been incorrect in not holding a belief in god.

Not quite. It would mean your finite set of true beliefs didn't include a particular one; not that any of the beliefs you actually had were wrong. You're right that you would be "incorrect" insofar as you are "incorrect" in connection with any and all other true beliefs you might have in theory but lack in fact. But having an incomplete set of true beliefs is not the same thing as having false beliefs.

And I do have a PhD in philosophy, and have taught logic ;)

My other useful degree is a JD haha.

>Don't sweat it though, most of us had logic 101 in college. Some of us even have a PhD in philosophy among other more useful degrees :)

ff

Atheism/secular humanism

not the point, as the question of existence is obviated by the lack of acceptance of the system by which the existence is stipulated

if you reject the system, you reject its underlying purpose, to make people believe that there are higher powers functioning in our lives.

we're on our own, and religion is keeping us from moving forward. religion blinds people to the obvious. the question of whether there is a god or not becomes immaterial when there are no religions to support the erroneous belief.

i am an anti-theist. i seek the destruction of religious belief, and the systems that have entrenched religion in our lives, for the good of man, and the advancement of society.

It's like my Pi example above. You're not believing anything false if you simply lack a position (a belief) about what the 1,405,045,049,178th digit of Pi is.

I'd like to have a beer with you. It seems rare to find someone who understands the difference between "not believing" and "believing there is not".

Thank cereal for that. No shit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

Islam, of course. Only religion driving people to war all across the planet.

I'm not saying humans aren't naturally tribal, divisive and sometimes warlike but if one religion is taking the blame for the greatest number of atrocities committed, it's Islam.

You're mentally challenged, right?

they all pretty much equally suck

I'm always happy to find someone on here who understands wtf I'm trying to say, haha

"A growing sense of community" about something does not make it a religion.

Stop using long words to sound smart when your premise is so obviously wrong.

that's like asking what the most cancerous cancer is, picking a religion is like picking which knife to chop your dick off with, i mean, does it really matter?

>Muslims are pretty chin in general
Except for the 1.6bn of them in the Middle East, Africa and S.E. Asia

>A definition is, by definition, exactly what it says. i.e. Black and white, moron.

You'd think so, but no. Conceptual analysis is a fucky, messy business.

How can people hate religion so much when it does so much good in world and always did

I'd argue that definitions -are- black and white. It's just that people are messy.

>I'd argue that definitions -are- black and white.
Stipulative definitions can be, but it's very hard to give necessary and sufficient conditions for the correct application of a given word or concept in natural language. What's a sandwich? What's a sport? Who the fuck knows. That kind of thing.

>It's just that people are messy.

That's right; the problem is that Wittgenstein was correct that meaning is determined by use, and people are the users. So meaning is messy.

That's hilarious. I also have a JD, but not from a very good school unfortunately. My hopes of teaching law were stolen from me due to that. Regardless, I still contend that for the purposes of the original argument, the difference is negligible. Yes, from a logical or purely academic perspective, you are correct. But on a practical level, as people would casually discuss in a bar perhaps, saying you lack a belief in god and saying you believe there is no God are essentially the same. I understand getting hung up on the minutia of it with someone who is maybe ignorant of formal logic or is who an erring pedant, but throw me a bone here. If I say, I do not think x is a good idea, then that is effectively no different than saying I think x is a bad idea. Logically different, yes. But insofar as it relates to communicating an idea, there is no dfference. That's been my contention all along.

Ino autism please. Just admit that proving a universal negative is impossible and accept that adding "agnostic" as a modifier would suit your beliefs better. Doesn't matter that you reject the underlying basis for such terms.

Yes you are. Refusing to adopt a belief of something that objectively is true (like your pi example), and which thus requires no belief, is an incorrect position to take. That's why it's wrong.

In the examples given here, the difference is academic and would not apply in basic communication between average people.

>Yes, from a logical or purely academic perspective, you are correct. But on a practical level, as people would casually discuss in a bar perhaps, saying you lack a belief in god and saying you believe there is no God are essentially the same. I understand getting hung up on the minutia of it with someone who is maybe ignorant of formal logic or is who an erring pedant, but throw me a bone here. If I say, I do not think x is a good idea, then that is effectively no different than saying I think x is a bad idea. Logically different, yes. But insofar as it relates to communicating an idea, there is no dfference. That's been my contention all along.

Totally agree, haha. There is something sticking my craw about the original example anyway:

"I do not believe (in god)."

It strikes me that putting it in the first person that way fucks with it somehow so that it gets closer to "I believe god doesn't exist," than it should logically speaking. I can't decide if it's pragmatics thing, or (like I mentioned earlier) if there's some weird Moorean sentence thing happening (like, "It's raining, but I don't believe it's raining").

you can call it a lack of belief all you want, but it is your belief system. stop being this summer

>Refusing to adopt a belief of something that objectively is true

There might be a mistake if you deny that there *is* an objective answer, but that's different from saying you're making a mistake by failing to believe a particular answer until you have reason to adopt one. I.e., you can believe there's an answer without presuming to believe anything about what it actually is.

SCIENTOLOGY
C G
I O
E L
N O
T T
O N
L E
O I
G C
YGOLOTNEICS

someone isnt educated on enough religions.
you shouldnt join in a conversation you have no knowledge of.

The three main monotheistic religions that are still being practiced today are about equal outdated and horrible in their practiced source texts. But only Islam is currently acting upon doctrines of violence to nonbeliever.

all of them.
hampering progression is all they do

>What is the worst, most cancerous religion?

Jew worship of money and Satan.

neanderthals left evidence of religious practices. religions started way before recorded history

someone butthurt that an anonymous 4 chan user dosen't believe in fairy tales, that's what i'm talking about, there is no proof of anything, and you call me ignorant for not agreeing with your pathetic childrens stories? kys plz

>stop contradicting me with your logic
kek

>saying you lack a belief in god and saying you believe there is no God are essentially the same.
Believing a claim (whether it's god exists or god doesn't exist) is a claim you have to prove though. Not believing in a claim does not give you that burden and is a neutral standpoint.
The former is already swayed in a direction, the latter is open for a claim if a burden of proof is met. I think that distinction is important enough to make clear even in casual settings. Whenever I do discuss something like this in a casual setting, I make sure that distinction is discussed. Otherwise I'm gonna get all kinds insinuations thrown at me which helps no one. Most people understand after some simple examples. The most common I like to use is a court of law. If someone is released after trial cause they couldn't convict him, does that mean he is innocent? Not necessarily, but it also doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. Replace non conviction with lack of belief, belief in guilty charge with belief that god exists and belief in innocence with belief that god doesn't exist and most people will understand

i'll tolerate any religion if
1) you don't knock on my door and try to convert me. some days i like to sleep til noon, so fuck you.
2) you don't blow stuff up when you don't get your own way

feminism

why nitpick?

They're all terminal level cancer, the differences are minute.

Satanists are pretty damn annoying. Bunch of edge lords walking around saying hail Satan gets old very fast.

My encounter with them made me remember the metalocalypse religion episode. It was true all religion is the same

>no Christians or Muslims
but Jews are fine? Honestly, they don't bother me.

...

This got me thinking.

We're the columbine kids religious?

This

i have no strong feelings towards any of them, as long as they don't involve me in their shit, let them keep on killing each other

Religion itself is the cancer

Jews are pretty cool

According to a quick google search, they were but they didn't target specific religious or social groups.
Even if they weren't religious though, a lack of belief in religion is not a reason to do anything, just like a lack of belief in fairies doesn't motivate someone to do something. If anything, ideology is to blame (pol pot, hitler, stalin etc. (the typical examples) all had ideologies that gave them the motivation to do something in the name of their ideology).

Kek

In the future religion will just be an identity thing, like ethnicity or hometown or alma mater.

I'm an atheist Christian. I don't believe in God, that's silly. But I was born on North America in the 20th c and I get Xmas off work and I understand biblical allusions ergo I'm Christian.

chanology is the exact moment anonymous turned into a bunch of flaming fagets.

> but it is your belief system.
Not every belief system is a religion. I'm afraid it is a tad more specific than that.
For example, you believe that the sun will tomorrow, but that doesn't make you a sun worshiper.

ALL religions are flawed and damaging to society.

Wicken.

Islam
case closed

>if they weren't, then atheists did Columbine
>if they were, it was just a random aspect that had no influence

Religious faggots are pure cancer

Scientologists are a joke, their religion will be dead within another couple generations.

Mormonism is pretty much the exact same thing, only 100 years older and it's only getting bigger.

so much this

In time we will look back at all these religions the same way we do as Greek Mythology today.

islam. of course.

>I hate Jews because I'm a giant cum-guzzling faggot and foreskin triggers me
I'm sure it feels the same when you're taking it up the ass, quit your bitching

>only religion driving people to war
yeah, because it's not like they're fighting any other religions... o wait

yeah, Jews and Christians are just as bad

Christianity.

Seriously, read the Bible, it contains more fucked up shit than the Qur'an does. Yes, really.

every stupid believe/fandom is dangerous be it a religion (which ever), Nation, football (or whatever) club, guns, etc.

Muslims follow the Bible closer than most Christians. They also believe in Jesus, of course.

Every Abrahamic religion is fucking cancer

MOST of them

Hasidic Jews are fucking cancer, as are all Zionists, regardless of their denomination.

Judaism. Zionism is responsible for the extended, slow genocide of the Palestinian people. We didn't give blacks, gypsies, or gays their own countries after WWII, why did we give teh Jews the Holy Land? People already lived there, it started like 4 wars, and it's been nothing but trouble.
PLus, do you want to talk about how everyone knows Judaism, and thinks Jews are extremely important, but they're actually like .2% of the world's population? There are more Shinto believers than Jews. There are more Mormons than Jews. There are infinitely more Hindu and Sikhs than Jews.

And yet Jews have their own country, and they think they have a right to tell everyone else what to do (case in point Netanyahu and the US government).

Republicans invited Netanyahu because they wanted to ramp up aggressions with Iran, for those shiny war shekels.

Blame the Republicans, Netanyahu was just accepting a gift.

correct
>/thread

Ethiopia; the ones that aren't dying are always quoting that shit

mfw people don't know the difference between a belief and a religion.

A quick Google of the word religion reveals:
1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2) a particular system of faith and worship.
3) a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance


See, the problem is that atheists don't actually worship anything or see anything as being "supremely important," though that definition is covering a slang use of religion, to be like (and this is Google's example) "consumerism is the new religion."

tl;dr- Atheists aren't a religion because religions require some form of worship or belief that something is sacred, which atheists do not. Atheism is a belief system, not a religion.

Imagination.

atheists are murdered by religious groups around the world because we represent an entirely different way of life. We are feared even more than other religions, because we aren't merely quibbling over details that are hundreds of years old, we are SHOWING that your entire way of life is not necessary.

>"Theists are bad guys who kill for their beliefs, atheists are governed by perfect logic and are powered by righteous justice!"

STFU

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

but they have the coolest hats

Doesn't respond to bulk of post, simply contradicts example given at end.

anyone can be a homicidal psycopath, but at least atheists don't have some imaginary higher power justifying all their atrocities for them.

islam

The only part I had an issue with was
>[Jews] think they have a right to tell everyone else what to do.

The example of Netanyahu wasn't good, because the premise is flawed. As far as religious groups go, Jews are relatively insular and mostly just concerned with their own borders and people.
>whether this is good or bad varies on the situation

>We're better because we believe our atrocities are entirely unjustified.

Religion threads will forever be the highest quality of bait. I mean this is pree-mo shit right here.

I don't commit atrocities because there's no justification for them.

Would you cut your child's throat if you heard God's voice commanding you to?

i've met atheists who are more religious in their disbelief than devout christians in their belief.

Idk man, if I heard a disembodied, all ppwerful voice which told me to kill my child I might freak the fuck out and do it.

But then again, numerous psychopathic serial killers hear the same thing and kill for that reason.

>Master of universe and definer of righteousness issues command

Not only would I, but I would argue that anyone is evil and illogical.

*Anyone who didn't

exactly

what's the real difference between being devout and being psychopathic?

Nice dubs

>dangerously unhinged
the sad thing is that people like this are attracted to religion, which they use to validate their erratic behavior.

Except the stated problem is that the Jews have borders at all. The Jews have, historically, refused to assimilate with any culture they are in contact with, which is why they get "picked on," all the time. They are generally of the opinion of their superiority (because God gave them the world, they are the Chosen People, even though being a Jew is a choice), even in regards to things like the Middle East, which they believe is their "birthright."

Story time! My GF's ex-step-mother is an American-born Jew, from a family of them that came over from Germany during WWII. No member of her family has ever even taken a vacation to Israel. My Gf's father, who was married to this woman, is second-generation Palestinian (the Christian brand), whose parents came over from Ramallah, and who still has family living over there. They divorced, obviously, but during their marriage they had to come to an actual, written agreement not to talk about Israel/Palestine after they nearly got divorced over it. The wife held firm to the position that as a Jew, who had no historical tie to Jerusalem beyond a religious one, she had more of a right to the lands surrounding Jerusalem than his family did. As a Jew, the Holy Land was her birthright, and despite the fact that her husband's father was from Palestine, and his cousins live in Palestine, she had the audacity (as did the rest of her family) to tell him that his family didn't belong there because they weren't Jews.

They are caustic, they are self-important, and they are over-represented based on population. Take issue with the example given the first time, but you're straw-manning me right now, so fuck you.

>Actually believing in something is wrong
Keep on being morally and intellectually weak user, see if I care.

To top it off, that's not even what Religion is supposed to be used for. It's to help control that behaviour, not amplify it through delusions of forgiveness if truly desired.

That's why I truly believe Religion is a neutral social construct and people make it positive or negative. Just like anything else in life.

What he stated is his beliefs on the subject of faith in religion. So he believes stuff, everyone does. He just doesn't have faith in a religion.

If you start hearing voices, the logical conclusion is that you are hallucinating, not that God is speaking to you. Even if you believe in God, you have to admit that most people who claim to hear Him are just delusional.

If you are willing to follow any likely delusion that pops into your head, you are dangerously unhinged.

Is "off" a tv channel?

Probably atheism.

Any religion that believes in the sky man.

You dumbasses not on that top tier sun worship yet

your sun is a pussy bitch

My god will go supernova on your ass, better watch out. Might smite you with a solar flare as a warning.

Religions are powerful political institutions with their own momentum at this point, they are entirely beyond the control of any individual, quite the opposite.

This is the problem.

we'll all be dead long before the supernova. The original nova itself will be enough to wipe out life on earth.

Krillin is my god

and you just ruined the fun. /b has become lame as fuck.

Point seems moot. Didn't state anything about a single individual running a religion. Said people, so that covers both individuals and large groups.

So dont know what angle you're coming from for meaning.

ur lame

yours

My point is that the momentum of these giant political institutions influences way more people than influence the actual religion. It is not a TOOL, it makes tools out of people, so it's quite the opposite of what you claimed.

There will always be a way to control the "dumb masses." Religion has had a strong hold for a while but there are other methods. Media being the easiest.
>Case and point, look at how many blind patriots there are that want to murder muslims. Look at how many people actually agree on fascism. Look at how many Trump supporters there are...
Fear is the best tool.

No, I'm pretty sure the points when people become tools is when a leader is using them to be tools, which is usually where people derive a disdain for religion from, taking examples of highly erratic and fanatical religious sects.

Other than that, people generally use it as their own tool for support on how to love their day to day lives.

So it's people in general, both in an individualized and more broader sense.

This.

Islam for second place

Pisslam goatfuckers

People all over America are told who to vote for by their priests. Children in countries all over the world are raped by priests, who are PROTECTED and moved to new parishes (yes, in the US too). The institution itself has the power to ruin lives and it does.

White Christian Males.
Ruin everything, brought on their own destruction.

>White Christian Males
that's a bit redundant isn't it?

Christianity is a European religion for the most part and women aren't generally allowed to have any influence.

Your... Point?

religion is more than just a tool wielded by individuals for good or bad. Each is its own entity, and a deeply destructive one at this point.

The one different from yours that is currently nearest to you.

Liberalism

Let's run a little root of cause equation. The stand alone is always the root cause.

Remove people, can these things happen with just religion in the equation? No, because religion will cease to exist if you remove people.

Now remove religion. Will this stuff still happen if people are the stand alone variable? Yes, it can and it generally does.

So religion isn't a stand alone factor because it can't stand alone, therefore it's people.

All the shit you stated was people doing things to people and for people and protected by people for the benefit of people.

Yep

let's be realistic

removing people is not a real solution, I hope you were not seriously suggesting it as such

given that we are only solving for situations that involve people, the point is to minimize these things happening, not prevent them altogether

I don't really think that any religion is cancerous. I myself do not believe in anything, but it doesn't bother me, that someone else does, everyone have rights to believe what they want. But i do, infact, think that most cancerous groups are the ones that force their beliefs on others or insult others for believing in something other than they are believing in.

If you really think that liberalism is a religion, you are hopelessly stupid.

>liberal detected

>Realistic
>Was suggesting a social construct created by people was it's own stand alone influencing entity now, instead of just a perception of the mind which people choose to or not to follow and what way to or not to follow as well.
>Believes everyone in religion is a tool used by the ideas themselves
>Doesn't understand if they were that bad shit wouldn't actually happen because people would follow said ideologies which often times largest teachings are to be morally just.

Alright, I've had my fun. Enjoy doing drugs in your house alone and forming more crackpot ideas

move along little sheep, your shepherd is calling

These threads are always the same. Butthurt atheist virgins arguing with butthurt christians. Nothings ever new.

All of them

and you're a special snowflake, congrats

Just saw that pic, not wanting to jump into the discussion.
But the pic shows people in a building build to revere and worship god. This is not their building personally and a lot of them live in very basic situations. Only putting on the expensive clothes and stuff when they do their god-stuff / work.

And no- im not catholic or even christian. Just wanted to point out the flawed logic in the pic

>Tips fedora

why is using tithes to buy elaborate palaces acceptable in your mind? There is certainly no support for such wasteful extravagance in the Bible.

Where to get a better version of this pic?
It's worth shit, being this small

Isalm. If i could make a wish IT would be that all arabs died. Plz make it happen Mr Donald

>this small
did you open it in a new tab? I can read it just fine.

PROTIP: if you click the little blue triangle next to a post number, you can do an image search for similar images.